1951-05-22

Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to draw the attention of all hon. members to a representative group of young Canadians from collegiate institutes and high schools in many parts of Canada who are distinguished visitors in the galleries this afternoon. These students, numbering 132, are the guests of the Ottawa Rotary club, which, in association with well over one hundred other Rotary clubs in Canada, deserves high praise and credit for this outstanding adventure in citizenship promotion, furnishing, as it does, a very special opportunity for these fine samples of young Canada to gain a firsthand appreciation of the beauties and facilities of our national capital and the workings of our free democratic way of life at the national level.
As a Rotarian myself I take deep pride in calling their presence today to the attention of the House of Commons, at the same time extending to our visitors on behalf of all hon. members a warm and enthusiastic welcome to parliament hill.


Mr. Speaker:: It has come to my notice
that there is not enough room for our visitors in the galleries ordinarily used by the public; perhaps on this occasion we might extend to them the facilities of the other galleries. If there are students who cannot get in the public galleries, they may be allowed to sit in the Speaker's gallery.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): I wish to lay on the table a copy in English and in French of the general report of the plan for a national capital, and the letter of transmittal from the chairman of the federal district commission, together with the recommendations made to the federal district commission by the national capital planning committee.
These documents will be available for distribution to hon. members, and there will be an opportunity in the consideration of the estimates for an expression of appreciation to the members of the federal district commission, the national capital planning committee and the Gatineau park advisory board.
I believe hon. members would wish me to express at once our appreciation of the devotion to a national cause that has been exhibited over the years by the members of these commissions and boards, and by those who have supplied them with their technical advice and assistance in the preparation of this work. I am sure hon. members will find that this is a plan for a long-time job to be done by the Canadian people to testify to the continuity of their institutions and their pride in those institutions. Hon. members will feel, I am sure, that it is a privilege for us of this generation to have some part in the furtherance of that national scheme.
I am certain it will be a pleasure to the young ladies and young gentlemen who are guests of the house in the galleries today to have been present when the final plan for the national capital was placed before their elected representatives.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in expressing gratification that the plan, which I believe is to be regarded as the final plan, has been presented to the commission and forwarded by the commission to this house for consideration. As the Prime Minister has indicated, the efforts of those who have served on this- commission so unselfishly and so faithfully is evidence of that very citizenship which we are seeking to impress upon the minds of all Canadians at this particular time. It is one of those contributions that men and women can make in the furtherance of their own national developments, which has been done so well in this case.
To those who are visiting the parliament buildings there is now an opportunity to see something of what those plans will mean, interpreted in the actual form that they are intended to take. May I suggest, however, that these plans should not be regarded as providing only a beautiful community which will house the buildings in which the business of the nation is done, but also as being directed to the beautification of a city which

National Capital Plan to all Canadians is the capital of a nation which is assuming increasing importance in the world.
In every country, the capital city is something more than just a city. In a way it is an expression of the loyalties, the hopes and the expectations of the future. To the people of the United Kingdom, London is no mere city. It is the home of all that they cherish in the form of the great traditions of that nation with which we have been and will continue to be so closely associated. So it is with Paris, and with all the memories of the pride and glory of that other nation with which we have such deep and affectionate ties. So it is with Italy, where Rome holds the memories of their greatness in the past and their hopes for the future. So it is with every nation.
As we accept these plans, and as we have an opportunity to consider them, I hope there will be in the minds of all of us the belief that in the years ahead Ottawa is to be the capital of a nation of increasing importance which will give to all its people reason for pride in calling this their capital city.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


Mr. R. M. Warren (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question relates to the beauty of Ottawa and the parliament buildings. During the months I am in Ottawa I live up in room 669, which is a small office. I am not fussy, but there are no conveniences-not even running water. It is all right for me. I do have, however, a good many visitors, among whom are many students. There is a window in that office, and the first thing a student wants to do is to put his head out the window and take a look. What does he look at? He looks at the library of parliament, that tower, and what does he see? Some years ago the glass in those windows was broken, and they are now covered by boards. The glass has not yet been replaced. I wonder if the Minister of Public Works would consider replacing that glass to make the view more attractive.
The thing that really makes me grumble is the lack of a bridge across the Ottawa river. This bridge should have been built fifty years ago, and when the minister is considering my problem he could also keep that in mind.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Addie Jane Monica Wright Brock.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]

Bill No. 298, for the relief of Evelyn Maria Bianchi Lippiatt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Leon Simon Marchand.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Ruth Helen Findlay Paterson Priestman,-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Ilse Helen Kneutgen Jorgensen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Howard Wesley Bartlett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Stephanos Katinoglou.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Yetta Handler Meller.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 305, for the relief of Raymond Landry.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Lloyd. William Lane.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 307, for the relief of Lovannez Chartrand Dinelle.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 308, for the relief of Sophie KotSos Moscoutis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 309, for the relief of Mae Kert Sigman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Sarah Jane Greeley Smith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 311, for the relief of John Cook Donaldson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Cecily Chandler Troop.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 313, for the relief of Doris May Thompson Ewaldt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Laurette Trudel Charland.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	315,	for	the	relief	of William
Stevenson Greenshields.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Clare Kent Gerrie Jorgensen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Beatrice Watson Bell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	318,	for	the	relief	of Marion
Cruickshank MacArthur.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	319,	for	the	relief	of Annie
Mendelson Teitelbaum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Gwendoline Mary Teresa Sullivan Duddridge.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	321,	to,	incorporate	Champion
Pipe Line Corporation Limited. - Mr. Macnaughton.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has a final report been presented to the government on the South Saskatchewan river scheme? If so, when may we expect the tabling of that report?

Righl Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question. The first question is: Has a final report been made on the South Saskatchewan river project? The answer is yes.
The second question is:	If so, when will a
copy of the report be tabled in parliament? The answer is that the detailed final report on the South Saskatchewan river project was tabled in the house on Friday, September 8, 1950. The only other reports are summaries of parts of the report which are submitted from time to time to the government for consideration.


Major James William Coldwell: I thought that a report had been made recently.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I should like to ask a supplementary question on this matter. Is the work to be proceeded with this summer?


Mr. Gardiner:: That is the question which is being considered when we get the summary reports.
HOUSING	[DOT]



REFERENCE TO SPEECH IN TORONTO BY MEMBER FOR PARKDALE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development. In view of the announcement of a new government housing policy, made last night in a Toronto speech by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hunter), will the minister acquaint the members of this house of this new policy?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such new policy.


Mr. Fraser:: That puts the hon. member for Parkdale on the spot.


Mr. Noseworthy:: I should like to ask two supplementary questions of the Minister of Resources and Development, arising out of the one asked by the hon. member for Broadview. First, has the minister's attention been directed to the article referred to? Second, did the hon. member for Parkdale have any authority for speaking with such assurance of a new government policy?


Robert Henry Winters: I am well aware of the importance the hon. member for Parkdale attaches to the matter of housing, especially in Toronto. He has spoken to me about it on a number of occasions. I presume he was speaking in Toronto last night in his capacity as a private citizen.
Inquiries of the Ministry



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE MEETING OF CONTINUING COMMITTEE   PENSIONS FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it the intention of the government to seek to place on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference, which has been called for tomorrow, an item which will permit discussion of pensions for handicapped or incapacitated Canadians?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gave me notice of his question, and I would answer it by pointing out that the continuing committee of the federal-provincial conference which is meeting tomorrow in these buildings derives its terms of reference from the agreement reached with the provincial governments in December, as stated in the following terms by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at the conclusion of that conference:
That a continuing committee should be set up to consider the character of legislation which would be appropriate respecting persons between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine and to what groups thereof and under what conditions it should be made applicable in each province.


Major James William Coldwell: This government is not seeking any change in the agenda in order to discuss this matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I pointed out, this is a conference which has been called as a result of an agreement with the provinces, and the provinces and the dominion have agreed as to terms of reference and as to the agenda of the conference.


Major James William Coldwell: The answer is no.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I have not sent him notice of my question, but I think it is an urgent one. Having regard to the extent of the progress that has been made in this house over the last few weeks, can the Prime Minister say when the government will give us the opportunity to sit in the forenoons and, if necessary, on Wednesday nights, so that we shall be able to complete the work and get out of here at least by the end of June?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The government notes the applause that seems to have followed the suggestion made by the hon. member.


Mr. Green:: All from the Liberals.


Major James William Coldwell: On a question of privilege, in view of the Prime Minister's comment on the question asked by the hon. member for Moose Mountain, that his suggestion was received with hearty applause, I think the Prime Minister misjudged the temper of the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: At this stage of the session many of us are opposed to morning sittings.

INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION	[DOT]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It is based on an article in the issue of the Montreal Standard appearing yesterday which contains the second instalment of a story entitled-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -"The Case of the Missing Gamblers". In this article it is stated-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Where is the missing
stone of Scone?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The question I wish to put to the Minister of Justice is whether he knows of a request which was made by the wife of one of these missing men for assistance by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to locate her husband, and of the reply which was given to her, as alleged, that the R.C.M.P. would assist in locating her husband, which reply was given last February. In the second place, I should like to ask the minister whether, in view of-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Write him a letter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -in view of the allegations of the importation of American gunmen into Canada and the existence of organized crime in Montreal and elsewhere,-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Mutch:: That is a speech, not a question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -including counterfeiting and gambling-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question, he must ask it briefly. It must not be a long question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would ask the minister
whether the government has given any consideration to conducting an inquiry into organized criminal activities in Canada along the lines of the inquiry which has produced such startling results in the United States.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand my hon. friend's question, he wants to know whether we have given any consideration here to setting up what would correspond to the Kefauver committee in the United States. My answer to that question is that no consideration has been given to such a proposal.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister be kind enough to answer the first part of the question, with regard to a request for assistance from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What has just taken place shows how improper it is to ask at this time questions which are long and involved. Questions which are asked on the orders of the day should be urgent ones which can be asked briefly and which can be replied to briefly. I would think that the hon. member might withhold this question until some future time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I might be permitted to say so, Mr. Speaker, I think the disappearance of men-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: The steam roller.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My question is based on-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Probably we would not have had this difficulty if the hon. member had asked a short question. If he wants to do so now, I will allow him to do it; but it must not be a long and involved question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would ask the Minister of Justice whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police made any investigation, in response to the request from his wife, into the disappearance of that man in Montreal.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend has given me no notice whatever of this long question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I telephoned the minister's office yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have given the hon. member a great deal of leeway. I think he should allow the minister to answer the question.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has given me no notice of his long and, as I find it, rather involved question. I should therefore like to take his question as notice and answer it tomorrow. Before doing that, however, I think I should like to have a conference with him in order to find out just what it is he would like to find out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think it would be proper to allow this discussion to continue.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Pouliot:: It does not pay to ask a twisted question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) is rising on a question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wish merely to point out, with reference to the statement of the minister, that I phoned his office yesterday and advised him of the subject matter of the inquiry which I was to make.



QUESTION AS TO PRIORITIES FOR FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I should like to draw the attention of the house to a group of our population which, if they are not already considered to be one of our most important groups, should be so considered. I refer to the good farmers of Canada. Why are they being discriminated against in the matter of priorities on cement?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: That is hardly a question; it is a statement. I think I can say they are not being discriminated against. There are no priorities on cement. Cement is distributed by the dealers-we hope, fairly to all. I have received no complaints from the distinguished citizens whom my hon. friend claims to represent.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I had a letter this morning from a farmer-
Mi. Speaker: Order. I do not think we should have a discussion at this time on that question.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Could I make just one statement? The only cement that the farmers-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Don't howl down the farmers.
80709-208J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Huron North wants to make a brief statement. I am sure he has the unanimous consent of the house.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I should like to ask the minister why it is that the only cement the farmers in my part of the country can get is United States cement at 40 cents to 45 cents a bag more than the price paid for our own cement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no idea. I am not responsible for the distribution of cement. I have no authority to distribute cement, and I do not know of any importations of United States cement.



LOCKPORT BRIDGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the great inconvenience to the local people, would it be possible to have extra shifts employed to speed up the repair work being done on the bridge at Lockport?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minisier of Public Works):: May I congratulate the hon. member on his short question, and I think I can answer right now. This work is under contract. I have instructed my officials to get in touch with the contractor to see whether he can speed up the work.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Scottie Bryce: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Is it so that the Canadian National Railways will not guarantee jobs or seniority to those who enlist either in the air force or in the navy?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I would ask the hon. gentleman to
allow me to accept his question as notice. I received it just as I was coming into the house. I have not had an opportunity of discussing it with Canadian National Railway officials.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. It arises
3266	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry out of the last figures released by his department, listing Canadian firms awarded new defence orders in excess of $10,000. Does he know that once again there was not five cents for Saskatchewan? If he does know that, can he take some steps in the future to see that we do get more defence contracts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that Saskatchewan is being overlooked is not correct. Only a few days ago I signed a very large order for blankets with a Saskatchewan woollen mill.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: These are your figures.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nevertheless I am having an analysis prepared, a proper analysis of the location-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -of defence work.


Mr. Harkness:: Weighted?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The list to which my hon.
friend refers names the post office from which the tenders were filed. It does not necessarily name the province in which the goods are to be manufactured. If he would accept it as such it would save him a good many speeches in the house. I will have a proper list prepared in which we will show all the defence expenditures in the province of Saskatchewan. Incidentally, my own department is at present spending a few million dollars there through Eldorado Mining and Refining.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: On May 10 a question of mine was passed as an order for return, as appears on page 2875 of Hansard. I should like to ask the Minister of Resources and Development, or the Secretary of State, whether that return can be expedited. It is a matter of importance in connection with housing in Saskatoon.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be
very glad to look into that, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister's nod does not show on Hansard.



PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BRITISH NORTH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) that the house go into committee of supply.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, when this motion came before the house last night I indicated that the official opposition wished to take the opportunity which such a motion affords to bring before the house and the country the question of the opposition which exists to the suggestion that the British North America Act should be amended to allow the provinces to impose an indirect sales tax to the extent of three per cent.
Last night before the house adjourned I had dealt with some of the aspects of this matter, which might be briefly summarized as follows:	It is now established that the
proposal for an amendment in order to revise the old age pensions scheme and the amendment with regard to the three per cent sales tax are entirely separate; that this separation was brought about mainly as a result of the representations made by the provincial premiers, who had desired that the two matters should be considered separately, and their request was acceded to by the federal authorities, as outlined in a letter by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) on April 16.
There is, therefore, at this time no pressure with respect to the three per cent sales tax amendment, no pressure which could result in the fact that it might be said to be necessary in order to bring about an amendment to facilitate the revised scheme for old age pensions. Therefore this house can now express its opinion on the three per cent sales tax question entirely without pressure, and without any suggestion that to oppose the one amendment might jeopardize the introduction or the facilitation of an amendment dealing with the old age pensions scheme. So we have arrived at the point where we can consider the sales tax amendment entirely upon its merits.
Just before eleven o'clock last night I had suggested also some grounds for opposing the three per cent sales tax amendment. The first ground is that it is unnecessary that there should be any such amendment to the constitution. It is unnecessary that the provinces be empowered to impose indirect taxation, because they now have the power

to do the same thing, namely, to raise revenue by a turnover tax, provided that that levy is in the form of direct taxation.
There are several provinces which have such a form of taxation. Notably I have in mind the province of British Columbia, where it is at the rate of three per cent, and yields in a fiscal year, in round figures, the sum of $28 million from the taxpayers of that province.
The second objection to the proposed amendment is that it would enable the provinces to impose a hidden form of taxation. Much has been written in economic textbooks about the objection to hidden forms of taxes. I think, however, the matter has never been more succinctly or clearly expressed, and in language that those who are not economists can understand, than in a recent editorial in the Windsor Daily Star of April 5 of this year. It says:
The difference between the direct sales tax and the turnover tax is that the sales tax is added1 to the amount charged for an article and is known to the customer, but the turnover tax is on turnover and is hidden. The customer is charged so much and he does not know how much is tax. So far as that goes, he usually thinks the merchant is sticking him for a higher price and does not realize he is paying a tax.
Apart from this feature there is the unfair burden a turnover tax places on those least able to pay. It applies to everything. Those in poorer circumstances pay much more in proportion than those in higher incomes.
Then the article concludes:
The idea of a turnover tax is a cowardly method of raising revenues. It sticks the tax knife into the customer after he has been given an anaesthetic.
Perhaps the most important of the objections to this type of taxation is that it is directly inflationary. It is imposed at the manufacturer's level, based on turnover. Each succeeding dealer, whether he be the middleman distributor, or retailer, adds to the price of the goods, which already includes a tax, his normal margin of profit. Through each succeeding pair of hands that particular article passes there is an increased mark-up, based on the initial price plus the tax, with the result that the tax at three per cent at origin may well be an additional increase in price of from five to six per cent by the time it reaches the hands of the consumer.
This type of taxation increases the prices of goods people must buy, out of all proportion to the revenue it actually brings to the treasury. It increases profits, because the mark-up is placed on the tax as well as on the initial price of the goods. To that extent it directly increases prices, increases profits and contributes directly to inflation. It is inequitable in that it bears most heavily on those who are least able to pay, because the
Turnover Tax
man with a low income and a large family has to pay as much tax on the goods he buys as the man who has a large income and perhaps only a small family.
These are the objections on economic grounds which might be advanced with respect to the tax. There are other objections, not the least of which is that at the present time we have much too large a proportion of our taxation being raised by way of indirect taxes. In years gone by-and not so many years at that-the major proportion of the revenue of the federal government and of most provincial governments came from direct taxation. That trend has now been reversed to a point where practically fifty per cent-I believe in 1949 it was over fifty per cent-of the national revenue is raised by means of indirect taxation.
Looking at the figures tabled by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, we find that the federal government now raises $1,200 million by means of indirect taxation. This amounts to forty per cent of the revenue collected by the federal government. If one bears in mind that the federal sales tax has just been increased to the general level of ten per cent, and the fact that the proposed amendment would enable the provinces to impose a similar tax of three per cent, both taxes being applied at the source on turnover, one will see, as was shown by an analysis made by experts on the subject, that the increases in prices of the goods when they reach the hands of the consumers would be in the order of from sixteen to eighteen per cent. With the burden of inflation and heavy taxation now being borne by the Canadian people reflected directly in higher prices and a spiralling cost of living, it surely cannot be denied that a tax impost which would result, when coupled with the federal government tax, in an increase in price of from sixteen to eighteen per cent should not be contemplated at the moment.
Another objection which might be offered is that the power to the provinces to impose this tax would be divisive and discriminatory. All the provinces do not now have equal sources of revenue. Some provinces have indicated that they would not resort to the three per cent tax. Other provinces have indicated that they would definitely impose the three per cent tax, and in fact would like to impose it at a higher rate.
If one of the objects of- recent dominion-provincial financial discussions, from 1945 forward, has been, as I understand it, to distribute equitably among the people of the country the fiscal burden they

Turnover Tax
have to bear, so that the poorer provinces particularly would be in receipt o f provincial incomes which would enable them to render services comparable with the services rendered by the richer provinces, with respect to social security; and if generally the idea has been that there should be a redistribution of income among the provinces, perhaps on the basis of fiscal need-if, as I say, that is an accurate statement of the general approach to the problem, then I submit that this proposal to allow the provinces to levy a three per cent sales tax would be a complete negation of that principle.
This is true for the very .reasons I have pointed out; some provinces which are in a fortunate position say they would not use the tax, even if the power to use it were granted, and other provinces say that as soon as the power is granted they intend to use it, and indeed would like to have authority to impose a tax of perhaps four per cent or even more.
Other provinces say they would like to apply the tax not only on the sale of goods but also on the rendering of services such as electric power, theatres, hotels and all that sort of thing. It would render quite unequal the cost of living as between the various provinces. A person passing from coast to coast and stopping off in the various provinces would find an entirely different cost of living in each province. It is a form of taxation which is unnecessary and particularly vicious, in that it would be discriminatory as between the provinces and the people living in the provinces. The very fact that the suggestion should now be put forward indicates that dominion-provincial financial relations are in pretty much of a mess as a result of the policies pursued by this government over past years, particularly as a result of their failure to reconvene the dominion-provincial conference which sat first in 1945 and completely overhaul the fiscal system of this country and follow it through to a logical and successful conclusion.
The provinces were practically driven by the federal authority into such a position that they very reluctantly, in many cases, gave up certain taxation powers. As a result of this whole process the provinces are now offered a most unpopular, a most unsatisfactory and most uneconomical form of taxation, namely, a sales tax. That is the position at which we have arrived. The provinces are strapped for funds as the result of the dominion-provincial agreements which have been imposed on them by the federal government, and are now in such a position that they have to contemplate asking for power

to impose an unjust, unfair and discriminatory sales tax on their people in order to get revenue.
The final consideration I should like to lay before the house in asking it to pass its opinion on the amendment which I shall move is that there is a very strong body of opinion which holds that this is an entirely wrong method to use to bring about a change of the constitution in this respect. We have been witnessing a development under which eleven officials, ten from the provincial governments and one from the federal government, are undertaking to amend our constitution in fundamental particulars, with regard to the division of taxing powers between the central and provincial governments.
The division of taxing powers was laid down first in the British North America Act by the fathers of confederation. After years of study and conference they arrived at the division that we now have. Although it may well be suggested that the time has come when a revision of that distribution is necessary, I think the strongest objection should be raised to an alteration in our constitution in any fundamental respect being brought about by eleven people, none of them elected for that purpose. I am not being personally critical of any of the people who have taken part in the conference, but I think that if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), who has carried forward most of the negotiations with the provincial premiers, will analyse the situation he will agree that he was not elected, nor was any provincial premier elected, to amend the constitution. That is not one of the things which the people of the provinces or of the dominion had in mind when they voted in either provincial or dominion elections. But eleven men are seeking to take to themselves the power to amend the constitution in perhaps its most important particular, the distribution of financial powers as between the federal and provincial governments.
In support of my contention that this is a wrong method to use to amend the constitution, I should like to quote from an editorial by Mr. Sandwell in the last issue of the Toronto Saturday Night. He points out that none of these eleven people was elected to assume the responsibility they are now assuming, and in the course of his editorial he says:
The correct position, it seems to this column, is that neither the government of the dominion nor the governments of the ten provinces have any right to change the distribution of taxing powers, or any other arrangement of the powers of legislation and administration, that are established by the British North America Act. The dominion parliament- wrongly, we believe-has acquired from the British

parliament the right to change the constitution in respect of the classes of subjects assigned to that parliament's legislative power. It has not, so far as we can see, acquired any right to change, with or without the consent of one, two, six or ten of the provinces, the extent of those classes, and yet that is exactly what it is purporting to do.
The whole idea of the amendment of the constitution becoming a matter of bargaining between the dominion government of the moment and the ten provincial governments of the moment seems to us illogical, undemocratic and revolting.
In conclusion I desire to move, seconded by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew):
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that further consideration should not be given to the proposal to authorize by amendment to the British North America Act an indirect provincial sales tax of three per cent."
On a recent occasion when we were discussing the proposal to increase the federal sales tax from eight to ten per cent, all members, on the opposition side at any rate, were agreed that that proposal was unnecessary at the present time and that this form of taxation is generally undesirable, because it is hidden, because it is inflationary, and because it would increase the already heavy burden of the high cost of living. All members of the Social Credit party, the C.C.F. party and the official opposition were united in opposing that increase. I am confident that those members will be united again on this occasion.
Since this is a proposal which invites an expression of opinion from the house and does not in any way involve legislation presented by the government, I would hope that members on the government side might feel free to express their opinion, because that is all they are being asked to do by the amendment-to consider or reject the proposal that at this time there should be no power given to the provinces to increase the cost of living by the imposition of a three per cent indirect sales tax.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will consider whether or not this amendment is in order, and I do not intend to discuss the question. I do wish to point out some of the inaccuracies1-quite involuntary, I am sure- in the speech of the hon. member who has moved this motion. His very first words last evening in opening this matter, which I find at page 3257 of Hansard, were:
Before this motion carries, Mr. Speaker, there is a matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the house. It concerns the proposal which has been made by the federal government to the various provincial governments to amend the British North America Act so as to enable the provinces to impose an indirect sales tax or turnover tax of three per cent.
Turnover Tax
I am sure the hon. member must know that is not a proposal that was made to the provinces by the federal government. A conference was called of the provincial governments, which met here in December of last year. At the end of that conference an agreed statement was issued to the press, which is to be found at page 137 of the report of the proceedings of the conference of federal and provincial governments, Ottawa, December 4-7, 1950, headed "Statement to the press by the Right Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent at the conclusion of the conference." I quote:
The conference discussed:
1.	The offer of the federal government for new tax agreements.
2.	The offer of the federal government respecting old age security.
3.	A provincial proposal for an amendment to the constitution to permit the provincial legislatures to levy an indirect sales tax at the retail level.
Why should the hon. member wish to create the impression that this proposal was made by the federal government, when it is perfectly clear, from the statement agreed to and issued after the conference, that it was a provincial proposal that was made at that time?


John George Diefenbaker: What province made that proposal?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Several provinces made the proposal, and it was generally discussed. I think the first to voice it at that conference was the premier of New Brunswick. I believe the hon. member will find that at page 30 of the report of these proceedings. I do not think it was referred to by any of those who spoke before the premier of New Brunswick, whose speech commences at page 29 of the report. This is the way he put it:
This, however, prompts me to suggest that there is another constitutional amendment which should be considered at the same time. It has relation to the taxing powers of the provinces whose jurisdiction under the British North America Act is limited to direct taxation.
Under the authority so vested in them, five of the provinces have now in operation a consumer's tax, so-called. In effect it is a sales tax but cannot be imposed in that less unattractive form. In 1950 the legislature of New Brunswick adopted legislation authorizing such a tax, notwithstanding the problems presented in its collection. It is quite possible that as time passes other provinces will find it necessary to rely upon this method of taxation to meet their revenue requirements.
We hope that all provinces will agree that a constitutional amendment should be sought to permit such a levy through the simple expedient of a sales tax. One would assume that if the provinces are in agreement on this point the federal authorities would readily concur.
That is the manner in which this arose. At that time the federal government had proposed to the provinces new tax agreements, had called the attention of the premiers to

Turnover Tax
the report of the joint committee of the two houses of parliament on old age security, and had stated that if it found a constitutional amendment necessary to enable contributions to be attached to a no-means-test old age pension it would attempt to implement at the earliest possible moment the recommendations of that joint committee. I think it was considered by the public generally that it would be desirable to have that kind of amendment made to the constitution.
At the same time, and concurrently with this general conference, there was an adjourned conference of the provincial premiers to discuss the method by ' which amendtnents to the constitution should be made in Canada. We had been discussing these matters on their merits in an amicable and cordial manner, and it appeared that it would not have been conducive to maintaining that cordial and amicable manner of discussing the problem if we said: No; so far as we are concerned all' amendments must be just one way amendments; there must be no amendment transferring any part of the federal powers to provincial legislatures; they must be amendments transferring some part of provincial jurisdiction to the federal parliament. We did not think an attitude of that kind would have been, conducive to the discussion of these matters in the spirit which was being displayed by all those who were then in conference.
The hon. member chooses to say that this constitutes an offer by the federal government to the provinces to take jurisdiction to impose an indirect sales tax. Well, he may view that as he likes, but he cannot change the facts, nor can he change the printed report or the agreed statement.
The hon. member goes on to say that we have now reached the point where it is admitted that the 'wo constitutional amendments are entirely separate and can be treated in that way, and that this is due to the insistence of the premier of Nova Scotia in a letter of April 16.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not quite accurate.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member should have read the correspondence more carefully if he was going to make an assertion such as that. Had he read it more carefully he would have seen that in a letter dated March 12 the premier of New Brunswick had this to say, the letter appearing at page 2729 of Hansard:
Some confusion seems to have developed' in certain quarters-
That was even before it developed in Kamloops.
-where an opinion or view has developed that the sales tax amendment was part and parcel of the

old' age pension plan which was under study at the December federal-provincial conference. All governments there represented are fully aware that there is no relation or connection between the two and that the old age pension plan can go forward without any sales tax amendment.
Then he added:
In order, however, to emphasize this point I am referring herein only to the old age pension amendment and shall make the proposals regarding a sales tax amendment the subject of another letter to follow shortly.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) replied to that letter fully, agreeing that there was no connection whatever between the two amendments. The one concerning old age pensions can go forward without any sales tax amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When was that first put into
writing by the federal authorities?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That was first put forward by the federal authorities at the very opening of the conference. It was stated that the tax agreements, old age pensions and the matter of the sales tax could all be considered separately. The tax agreements were not dependent upon agreement on old age pensions, and old age pensions were not dependent upon agreement on the tax agreements. Those were the two proposals put before the conference by the federal government, and the only proposals put before the conference by the federal government. It was only upon this question being raised afterwards by Premier McNair that we did not take the stand that we would not give consideration to their request, if they all wanted that power, to impose an indirect sales tax.
After all, in spite of what may be said by any editor of any newspaper in Canada, the provincial premiers do have a certain representative capacity when they meet with the federal government. They are elected to look after the interests of the people of their provinces, just as we are elected to look after the interests of Canadians generally without regard to the province in which they happen to have their homes. I believe that if ten provincial premiers, having given serious study and consideration to a problem, come together and say that in their opinion and judgment it would be in the interests of the people of their provinces to have a certain form of taxation available to them, it would be, I shall say, impertinent for the federal government-in whatever aspect it may be regarded when it comes from the hon. member for Kamloops-to say the proposal is so ridiculous that we will not give it any consideration whatever. Certainly that would not be an attitude that would be conducive to obtaining the kind of co-operation between those who exercise legislative and

administrative authority in this country that is desirable for the promotion of the interests of the people.
I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of an indirect sales tax. The hon. member for Kamloops says it would bring about discrimination. He himself stated that there was that kind of discrimination. He says that in his province there is now a direct sales tax of three per cent that is payable by all those who are either residing in his province or who just happen to be there and want to buy some commodities. There are at least five provinces in which there are no such sales taxes. There is one in which the sales tax, instead of being three per cent, is five per cent. This kind of discrimination has existed, and the people of Canada have carried on. Since those discriminatory measures were put into effect there have been provincial elections, and those who were responsible for putting them into effect got the support of the majority of the elected members in their respective provinces. That seems to be the way in which democratic institutions operate in this country.
The hon. member says that this kind of tax would be a tax put on at the manufacturers' level, and would pyramid in the hands of each successor who dealt with the same commodity. There again I am afraid the hon. member has been rather shortsighted in reading the form of the amendment which the Minister of Justice was asked by the ten premiers to approve, which he did approve, and which he sent out to them with his letter of January 2, 1951. It is printed on page 43 of Hansard of February 1, and reads as follows:
(b) indirect taxation within the province in respect of the sale of goods (except goods sold for shipment outside the province) to a buyer for purposes of consumption or use and not for resale . . .
It is apparent that the hon. member has built up a windmill against which to direct his speech and his motion, without regard to the documentary evidence that he had before him.
The hon. member says that amendments to the constitution should not be made by eleven men. If that means anything, I believe it does convey the implication that there are amendments made in that way, or that are being proposed to be made in that way. The hon. member knows that there have been a certain number of amendments to the constitution of this country since 1867, and that for the last fifty years at least the procedure which has become the established procedure is for those amendments to be made by the parliament at Westminster on a joint address of the two houses of the Canadian parliament. No one who has been 80709-209
Turnover Tax
prime minister of Canada has at any time attempted to make amendments to the constitution. The government from time to time has recommended to the houses of parliament that a joint address be presented to His Majesty requesting that an amendment be made. The joint address does not go forward until the members of this house, and the members of the other place, have had an opportunity of deciding, by a majority of the votes of the elected or appointed representatives of the people, whether it is in their interest that the amendment should be made.
The hon. member has been here long enough to have heard from that side of the house the thundering tones upbraiding the government for daring to suggest any kind of amendment to the constitution without the consent of the provincial governments. Frequently that has been the subject of strong denunciations from the other side of the house. The hon. member professes a devotion to democratic processes; then he suggests it is this house which should determine through what form the provincial authorities will put their consent when it is to be expressed to the presentation of an address for an amendment. This party feels that that is a responsibility for those who speak for the provincial government. I know that in fact several of them had their legislatures pass laws or resolutions in connection with the amendment which is now being sought from the parliament at Westminster to establish a no-means-test old age pension in this country. As to what the other governments did I do not know, and I do not think it should be my concern. If one should undertake to put its view forward as being the view of the whole province, the electors of that province will have a democratic opportunity to deal with its conduct. All the provincial legislatures having been in session since this dominion-provincial conference of last December, I am convinced that there was ample opportunity for those legislatures to make their views known and that the ten provincial premiers who have expressed their acceptance of the form of amendment to be requested with respect to old age pensions had the authority of the people of their respective provinces to express such consent. I am not going to deal with the merits of that situation. But this conference was adjourned.
From what I have read in the newspapers it seems that there are some of the provincial premiers who do not think that it would be a good thing for the provincial legislatures to have the right to resort to an

Turnover Tax
indirect sales tax at the retailers' level. Quite frankly, I would be sorry if they all agreed that there should be any transfer of taxing jurisdiction from parliament to the provincial legislatures. But at this time, when we are merely at the stage of an adjourned conference, both on the method of making future amendments to the constitution here in Canada by some Canadian authority, and on the question of further tax agreements between the federal government and the provinces, it would not appear as if this house had any confidence in this government if it were to say that it should withdraw from the subjects under discussion for the continuation of this conference the possibility of consideration being given to an amendment that would work to transfer some jurisdiction from the federal authority to the provincial authority.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister permit a question at this point?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: What attitude did he, on behalf of his government, take as to the propriety of the provinces having power to impose a three per cent sales tax by the necessary amendment?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I was not in a position where I could express the decision of the Canadian government. That was not a part of the authority that had been given to those who were representing the federal government in those conferences. If there was a unanimous request from the provincial governments for that kind of amendment at this period of our constitutional development, with the matters that are now pending for decision between the provincial authorities and the dominion government, I would recommend to my colleagues that we do not refuse to go along with them.


Howard Charles Green: Even though it is a thoroughly bad tax.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Even though the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) calls it a thoroughly bad tax, and had the opportunity of having a vote in this house which showed in what a small minority he was.


Howard Charles Green: Better hold your temper.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The fact that the hon. member calls the thing "thoroughly bad" does not necessarily mean that everyone in Canada agrees with him; because he has called this government thoroughly bad on more than one occasion and he has had ample evidence that there are not many in the country who agree with him.


Mr. Ferguson:: Over fifty per cent of the people agree with him.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This strategy has another effect. This is a motion to say that this house is not prepared to go into committee of supply to provide this government with the money required to carry out the administration of the country. The amendment is that all the words after "that" be struck out and be replaced by this expression of no confidence in this government to carry on further discussions with the provincial authorities on a matter such as that which is involved in the terms of the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a far-fetched
assumption.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The motion is that the house resolve itself into committee of supply to consider the estimates that have been placed before the house. This amendment seeks to express in advance an opinion upon something that may never come before the house. There could not be any attempt to amend the constitution in order to give the provinces the right to impose indirect sales tax without an address voted on affirmatively by this house. This amendment seeks to express the opinion that further consideration should not be given to the proposal to authorize, by amendment to the British North America Act, an indirect provincial sales tax of three per cent. There is no such proposal being given consideration by this house. A proposal was put forward by the provincial premiers at a conference which is now adjourned, and with respect to which their views were expressed-as to nine of them, I think-in the correspondence that has been tabled. I have read in the newspapers, since the dates of that correspondence, that some views were expressed by another provincial premier in a public speech at London recently.


John George Diefenbaker: Who was that? Was it the premier of Ontario?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I understand that the premier of Ontario, in a speech at London recently, expressed the opinion that it would not be desirable to have that kind of amendment. There is no direct expression of his views in the correspondence that has been tabled; but my understanding is that both he and the premier of Quebec have now expressed the opinion that it would not be desirable to have that kind of amendment. The premier of Quebec seems to be quite satisfied with the system that he has established of having the dealers act as collectors of a direct tax on the commodities that are sold to the consumers. As a matter of fact, the tax is five per cent in some cities. I

would not be at all surprised if it was preferred to raise five per cent in that manner rather than to be limited to raising three per cent in another manner.


John George Diefenbaker: He would not be denied both ways, then, if an amendment passed, would he?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: He would not be denied both ways; but it is something for which those administering public affairs would be responsible to the people of their respective provinces; and the hon. gentleman knows, as I do, that in provincial politics the volume of taxes and the form of taxes imposed by a party in power are always live issues at election time.


John George Diefenbaker: That is in the provincial arena.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: That has been my experience over the last fifty years. Though I was not of his party, I was somewhat incensed over the fact that my good professor of Roman law was generally called "the taxer", he having headed a provincial administration during whose tenure of office some unpopular forms of taxation had been enacted. There is no doubt that all these taxes are rather obnoxious. But there is no doubt that present conditions in this country require methods whereby there are transfer payments from some income groups to other income groups. That has become necessary. We have discussed in this house problems with respect to social welfare, problems with respect to education, and the needs that are so urgent in all these public services. I think that these matters should be discussed on their merits, and that this house should wait until something comes before it, before it expresses any veto on proposals that may never come before it.
When we sit around the conference table with the elected representatives of the ten Canadian provinces, we are all fellow citizens 'interested in the same degree in the good administration of the affairs of the whole country under a system whereby a part of the sovereignty is in one place and another part of the sovereignty is in another place, and where the whole of the sovereignty has to be used to satisfy the legitimate interests of the people of the country. Well, when we do that I think that it is preferable that we try to arrive at the best possible solutions, and that we do not go there with a declaration made in advance that we will not even give consideration to any one thing that might come from the provincial representatives.
80709-209$
Turnover Tax
I think that we have to be prepared to give these matters consideration. It may very well be that the consensus will be that there should not be at this time any attempt to interfere with the respective taxation jurisdictions of these authorities. It may very well be the basis upon which we were acting at that time; that nothing was going to be decided by the majority; that unless there was unanimity with respect to any of those constitutional proposals they could not be proceeded with. That is the basis upon which the matter was put before the ten provincial governments. It was a transfer of jurisdiction, something which interested both the federal government and the provincial governments, and that in those cases until there was agreement that the provinces would be bound by a majority we would not attempt to proceed without the unanimous consent of all those who were to be affected.


John George Diefenbaker: Does there look to be any possibility that the provinces will agree to any such change by a majority vote?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, here I would not like to express any opinion. I know that there was no agreement to be bound by anything but unanimous consent so far; but they have not, any of them, declared that there was no use pursuing the matter further. They are still studying it, and still considering it, and I think they are considering it in good faith, and in an honest endeavour to serve the best interests of those whom they represent in their elected capacities. They have not said that there was no use pursuing it further.
This being a request by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) for a vote of no confidence in this government, of course the government cannot accept it. The government has confidence in itself. It hopes that there are enough members in the house to support it in that stand; but the rejection of this amendment does not mean anything at all. It does not mean that this house would be prepared to join in an address requesting an amendment to authorize a sales tax. It merely means that this house is not prepared to turn this government out because this government did not refuse to give consideration to that matter when it was raised in the dominion-provincial conference by one of the provincial premiers. That is all it means.
If ever there was any unanimous agreement by the provinces that they should have that power, the government would then have to take the responsibility of deciding whether or not it would recommend to parliament the adoption of an address; and if it recommended to parliament the adoption of an

Turnover Tax
address, parliament would then dispose of that address as the hon. members might feel was in the best interests of the Canadian people as a whole. But at this time there is certainly no such urgency of expressing such an opinion as would displace the urgency of getting on with the normal business of voting the supplies that are required for the administration of this country's affairs.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has placed this motion upon the basis of a want of confidence motion, and has left the impression that to support it would be to vote want of confidence in the government. It seems to me that the words of this motion are not susceptible of such interpretation.
The words of this motion constitute an expression of opinion by hon. members that further consideration should not be given to the proposal to authorize, by amendment to the British North America Act, an indirect provincial sales tax of three per cent. That I submit is an appropriate motion at such a time. In fact, this is a long established practice. This is a procedure with a long tradition behind it.
The motion to go into supply affords an opportunity to obtain an expression by the house in regard to any matter that the house is competent to deal with. Obviously, a motion cannot deal with some other motion that is before the house. It cannot deal with any legislation that is before the house. It can deal only with something that is of concern to hon. members which is not before the house in any other way. That is exactly what we have in this instance.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is not only a motion well within the rules, but it is a very proper thing that hon. members at this time should indicate what their opinion is in regard to this form of taxation, so that the time of this government, and of other governments, will not be wasted if in fact hon. members do not believe that any tax of this kind should be introduced. That is the purpose of the motion, and that is the result that would follow. The government then would have an indication of the sentiment of this house, and could very properly say that it did not consider it was wise to proceed with the discussion of an amendment of this kind to the British North America Act.
I must confess, Mr. Speaker, to a great deal of surprise as to why the Prime Minister should be so exercised about the fact that it was stated a proposal had been made. A great deal has been said -about where this suggestion came from. It was stated that the

suggestion had come from the premier of New Brunswick. That will undoubtedly be interesting to the people of New Brunswick. It is of course a matter of interest that New Brunswick already has a four per cent tax; and also it is a matter of interest that the premier of New Brunswick has indicated that he does not think that the amendment put forward by the dominion government-and it is an amendment put forward by the dominion government-is in itself adequate; because he wants an amendment which would make it possible to impose a four per cent indirect tax, or such higher tax as he sees fit.
In other words he has made it clear that he does not think there should be any limitation of this kind. Of course it would have the advantage of being a hidden tax. The premier of New Brunswick is within his rights in presenting that opinion, and the members of the House of Commons, who also must assume responsibility, are within their rights if they also express an opinion as to a tax of this kind.
But, Mr. Speaker, there are other reasons why I find it difficult to understand why such vigorous exception should have been taken to the word "proposal". In the house this subject has been under consideration before. It is interesting to note that this was brought forward for at least consideration by the house in the speech from the throne. If it was worthy of inclusion in the speech from the throne as something for members to consider, and if it was put forward by the governor general as such, then surely it is appropriate for us to discuss a resolution of this kind in an orderly way.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The Prime Minister just changed his mind, that is all.


George Alexander Drew: I would remind hon. members of the words in the speech from the throne when reference was made to these two proposed amendments to the British North America Act-and there were only two.' One was an amendment that would make it possible to proceed with the old age pensions plan, and the other was an amendment which would make it possible to introduce this new form of indirect taxation. There were just those two.
Therefore with that in mind it is interesting to read the words in the speech from the throne, and I quote from that document as it is recorded at page 2 of Hansard in the present session:
The provincial governments are at present giving consideration to these proposals and to proposals for constitutional amendments which may require to be submitted to you before the close of the present session.

Every hon, member knows that the speech from the throne is drafted by the government, and that the government itself has described these as proposals. Therefore one of the proposals is the amendment to the British North America Act to provide for this indirect form of taxation.
Surely if we adopt the wording of the government itself there should not be any reason for such vigorous opposition to the adoption of that term. But what is a proposal? Surely a proposal is something put forward-and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was certainly putting something forward, on January 20 of this year, in his letter t the Hon. A. L. Macdonald, premier of Nova Scotia. I think in view of the objection that has been taken to the stand that the dominion government has assumed any initiative in this matter, it would be well to put that letter on record at this point. It says:
Dear Mr. Macdonald:
Since I wrote you on January 2 enclosing a suggested constitutional amendment to make it possible, inter alia, for provincial governments to impose an indirect sales tax at the retail level, it has become clear that such a proposal will be subject to the most powerful opposition of the retailing industry throughout the country. Apparently the attack wiil be made partly on the plausible ground that if provincial governments are allowed the right to levy indirect sales taxation, they may discriminate between different classes or types of retailers based on their residence, or their ownership, or their marketing methods, or what not-thus setting up effective trade barriers between different parts of the country. You will recall that it was on this general ground1 that a somewhat similar proposal was defeated in the Senate in 1936.
I think you will agree that it would be most unfortunate if as a result of a similar attack based on similar grounds, we should fail-
"We should1 fail"-
-to secure the enactment of a measure which provides for an extension of the taxing powers of the provincial governments. After very careful consideration, therefore, we would propose that there be added to the draft amendment already sent you, dealing with retail sales taxation, the following words:
"and not so as to discriminate between sellers or classes of sellers of the same class of goods."
Yours very truly,
Stuart Garson
Thus, Mr. Speaker, we have the word "proposal" used several times by the dominion government in regard to this very matter. Therefore in drafting the resolution let me point out that the government itself provided the word that was used in that resolution, which is now before the house.
The Prime Minister was unduly caustic and, in fact, not by any manner of means in his best form, when he became so critical of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) in his apparent misunderstanding of
Turnover Tax
what the thoughts of some people had been in regard to the two proposed constitutional amendments. He emphasized the fact that there never had been any doubt, that there could not be any doubt, about the fact that these do not go together. May I suggest that if there has been any confusion it is not the hon. member for Kamloops alone and it is not hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party alone who have been subject to any confusion on the score.
I merely place before the house how this confusion has arisen elsewhere. I hold in my hand the issue of the Charlottetown Guardian of April 24, 1951, and in big capital letters I see the words, "Here are the facts". Then, in somewhat smaller capitals, but still conspicuous, these words:
If the Conservatives under R. R. Bell should be elected, his promise to veto the sales tax amendment to the constitution would also block the old age pension amendment-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who inserted that advertisement?


George Alexander Drew: I was coming to that. Then this paragraph concludes-
-and the proposed old age pensions would never be paid.
Whom was this inserted by? It was inserted by the Prince Edward Island Liberal party, in a full-page advertisement, just prior to the recent election down there.


Robert Henry Winters: And how did they do in that election?


George Alexander Drew: Who won that election? Oh, I am very glad the hon. member has asked that! Yes, it is perfectly true that Premier Jones did win the election, with statements of that kind printed in the press and given to the public in the province of Prince Edward Island. And if the hon. member wishes to take credit for getting into power by false pretences, then by all means let him gain whatever measure of comfort he gets from that source. But let us just look at the bottom of the advertisement-and this all refers to the objection taken by Mr. Bell to the amendment that would provide for this indirect tax. After the statement I have quoted, down at the bottom of the page we find, "Vote Liberal, and protect the old age pension."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: That applause would seem to suggest that there is some confusion also in the minds of Liberal members in the House of Commons, because they are applauding either a dishonest statement or the fact that people should be misled by the suggestion that the refusal to accept the amendment

Turnover Tax
permitting an indirect sales tax would block old age pensions. There is no other reading of what appears on this page. I have put that forward merely to indicate clearly that if there was any confusion in people's minds that it had1 been suggested there was some relationship between those two amendments, most certainly that confusion was not confined to any member of this house who has discussed this subject.
The argument put forward this afternoon by the Prime Minister was in effect an argument that we should not now discuss this particular subject because the dominion government should be ready to proceed to hear what the provinces have to say in regard to this amendment, no matter whether they think it is a good amendment or not. The dominion government and this parliament cannot absolve themselves from responsibility in regard to this. Either this is something that should be put forward or it is not. Members of this parliament should not support a submission to Westminster if they do not believe that that submission is something which should properly be put forward as an amendment to the British North America Act.
The Prime Minister said, and I quote his words: I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of an indirect tax of this kind. I submit that we should discuss the merits or demerits of a tax of this kind because if members of this house do not believe that there should be such a tax then time would be saved for the dominion government and for the provincial governments if they had an indication of opinion from the members of this house. They then could proceed to discuss with the provinces the appropriate adjustment of taxation that would give them the taxing resources they desire without introducing an objectionable tax of this kind.
The Prime Minister has placed a sort of emphasis on his belief that it is the democratic thing to let the provinces decide what they want and then, no matter what view may be expressed here, to accept that if they happen to get agreement among the ten provinces. There were many who thought that the consideration of this tax was a dead issue in view of certain public statements that had been made. However, a short time ago the Prime Minister made it clear that this was by no manner of means a dead issue. On May 4, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) asked the Prime Minister whether this constitutional amendment was still under consideration and. the Prime Minister replied, as reported on page 2682 of Hansard:
The federal government declared at the dominion-provincial conference that if the provinces were

agreed that they wanted the other, the federal government would go along with them, and that is still the position.
The "other" that is referred to there is the amendment to the British North America Act which would permit the imposition of an indirect sales tax of that kind. However, if the Prime Minister had made no such statement on May 4 he would have left no doubt in anyone's mind here that this is very much a live issue. Because it is a live issue I suggest that it is appropriate that the members of this house express their opinions without any suggestion that such an expression of opinion would or would not be a vote of confidence in the government. In fact the Prime Minister has indicated that the government has not expressed an opinion. Since it has not expressed an opinion I suggest that it is preposterous to place on the basis of a vote of confidence an expression of opinion which would merely assist the Prime Minister in understanding what the sentiment of this house really is in regard to this tax.
Having dealt with that, let me refer to what the Prime Minister said about the British Columbia tax. He showed a measure of irritation that was out of keeping with the manner in which the arguments have been put forward. He was extremely sarcastic about what the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) had done in presenting some of his arguments and his references to the British Columbia tax.
The British Columbia tax is a sales tax. The Prime Minister left the inference that since they have already dealt with a tax of this kind there would not be much difference if they had this amendment. But the fact is that the British Columbia tax is a direct and open tax. I am not expressing any opinion in favour of a tax of that kind; in fact I have expressed an opinion to the contrary on other occasions, and I refer to when I had a certain responsibility in regard to provincial taxes of that nature. There is a vast difference between these two taxes. The direct provincial tax indicates clearly to the purchaser what the purchaser is paying, but this indirect tax is a hidden tax which hides from the purchaser what he is paying and is not in any way made up in the real value of the article itself.
They are very different and they create great differences in any goods that are merchandised on a national scale. Where goods are merchandised on a national scale the price can be fixed in the advertisements and the purchaser knows that that is the price. When a direct tax is paid the purchaser knows he is paying a tax. That is his choice; that is his decision. In this case, however,

the provinces would have the right to impose or not to impose a hidden tax. Consequently it would be made extremely difficult to merchandise on a national scale products of the same kind that are distributed throughout the whole of this country.
Let us look again at what the Prime Minister said. He said: I do not think it should be my concern. I think it should be his concern; I think it should be the concern of every member of this house whether this is the kind of amendment that should be brought forward. Following the Prime Minister this afternoon one was led to the conclusion that the Prime Minister had the idea that this was something for debate only in the provincial legislatures. If there was agreement, that settled it and we had nothing to do. This matter has been up before the House of Commons in years gone by and never before was there any suggestion that this was not a subject for discussion in the House of Commons. The fact is that the primary responsibility is in this house because it is from this house that any proposal must go forward for consideration by Westminster.
Having said that, and hoping that there still may be an expression by members of this house at this time, may I once again point out the reasons why there should be a clear declaration that this amendment will not be adopted by this house to meet any of the problems that we face today. First of all, let us remember that an amendment of this kind would change the fundamental allocation of taxation which has existed ever since 1867. There are many people who will say, "Well, we have come a long way from 1867." That is quite true, but those who drafted the basic constitution at that time could never have contemplated the problems we face today, and I am one of those here who for years have been urging that these changes should be recognized and that there should be a re-examination of the whole tax structure. I have urged over and over that there should be a conference which would deal exclusively with the whole problem of taxation, so there might be an allocation of taxes at the dominion, provincial and municipal levels which would bear most easily upon the taxpayers of this country and make it possible for the administrative responsibility of those bodies to be matched by their taxing authority so they could in fact have independent discretion as to what they should do.
The suggestion here would simply provide a temporary solution. It would break away from our traditional tax position without providing any satisfactory solution from the
Turnover Tax
long-term point of view. Why should the dominion government make an amendment to the basic constitution and say to the provinces, "You can just have a little 3 per cent nibble at this tax, and no more." Either it is right to let the provinces into the indirect field without any limiting declaration of that kind and have both fields open to provincial and federal governments, as they are now, or there should be clearly defined taxes available to both bodies. The dominion government should not say that the provinces should have so much of this and so much of that, and beyond that they can just whistle for it; that they can only do what may be possible within the amount the federal government is allowing them. That is not the basis on which it should be done.
I know that in answer to what I have just said it can be suggested that this cannot be done at all unless the provinces agree. That is so; but the provinces are being asked to consider-and I repeat "asked to consider"- a draft put forward by the dominion government which would impose that limitation at this time. Already we have an indication that one of the provinces does not think that is enough. Therefore we know that if this were done now it would not be very long before there would be a request for an increased amount. After all this is administrative in function, and should not be the subject of a constitutional amendment of this kind.
This form of indirect taxation not only carries with it all the objections which apply to any other indirect tax; it has special objections in addition. An indirect tax imposed by the dominion government would apply over the whole field evenly. An indirect tax which could be levied by some provincial governments and not by others would constitute in effect something in the nature of a tariff barrier between the provinces; and the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice would not prevent evils of that kind creeping in. When he suggested the addition of the words "not so as to discriminate between sellers or classes of sellers of the same class of goods" he did not suggest anything that would prevent the inequities which would follow the application of a tax of this kind. Let us take just one of the absurdities that would be met. In the proposed amendment the Minister of Justice has placed before the provincial governments, there is a provision that this would not apply to goods shipped out of the province. Just think of the very interesting situation that would arise right here in Ottawa and in Hull, across the river. Anyone living in Ottawa could order goods

Turnover Tax
in Hull, which could then be shipped across the river and would not carry this tax, if there were such a tax in Quebec. Anyone in Hull could telephone to a store in Ottawa; and if the tax were imposed in Ontario it would not apply to goods shipped across the river. Therefore you could have a device by which there would be discrimination against merchants in one place or the other, a very open device for avoiding the consequences of the tax itself.


Alphonse Fournier: You know we have
that tax in Quebec now?


George Alexander Drew: Not this indirect tax.


Alphonse Fournier: Not this turnover
tax, but we have a sales tax in Hull.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Public Works
(Mr. Fournier) knows there is a sales tax and he knows when he pays it, because it is a direct tax. He has a chance to pay it or not as he sees fit, and I have no doubt there are occasions when he does not pay it, simply because he is able to determine whether or not he will.


Alphonse Fournier: I cannot recall when
I did not pay my tax.


George Alexander Drew: But this is a discretionary tax
which the minister can pay or not pay, depending on which side of the river he happens to be on any particular day. I hope he will not suggest that he has never bought anything in the province of Ontario.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, no.


George Alexander Drew: Then may I also point out that those provinces which have the greatest tax resources at the present time could most easily avoid putting into effect a tax of this nature. Those provinces which already have their tax resources limited would be more inclined to impose this tax. Therefore those in the provinces regarded as more fortunate from that point of view would not pay the tax, while those in a less fortunate position would be called on to pay it. It is the kind of tax that would tend to divide this country, that would tend to create inequalities, that that would tend to increase inequalities, at a time when this parliament and the government, which is the executive of this parliament, should be seeking methods of taxation and of allocating tax funds which would equalize opportunities and remove inequalities right across the country.
Then may I point out that this is a tax at the top level, at the retail level, and because of that fact it is a tax on every other tax that goes into the cost of goods in this country. It is a tax on the municipal tax; it is a tax on the federal tax paid by the merchant; it is a tax on every other tax, federal, provincial

or municipal, which the merchant is called on to bear. Hon. members know that all these taxes go into the cumulative cost of the article, and it is that cost on which this three per cent would be imposed. We have been warned of inflationary trends. Only yesterday there was a warning no one should ignore as to the danger of continued spiralling inflation. At such a time this house should be seeking every possible method to reassure the public that artificial pressures increasing inflation will not be created. Certainly this would be a highly inflationary pressure, and assurances should be given by the members of the house at this time that they do not believe this kind of tax should be imposed.
Having pointed out that I believe there are reasons why this tax would be very improper; that it would be an iniquitous tax to introduce at this time; that it would bear most heavily on those least able to pay it; that it would in fact be a tax to soak the poor: I think this amendment, couched in terms that do not condemn and do not repudiate the action of the government but simply express an opinion, gives hon. members an opportunity to say to the government that while we certainly respect the point of view expressed in any other legislative body, we also have the right and duty to express our own opinion, and our opinion is that this iniquitous tax should not be considered at this time.


Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that there is a great deal of merit in what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said. I think in this instance I am going to afford myself the luxury of supporting the amendment of his party. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said that he will interpret the defeat of this motion as want of confidence in his government, I do not choose to interpret it that way. Under these particular circumstances I wish to express my disapproval of this sales tax constitutional amendment. I merely want to say at this time that, despite my vote on this issue, I have not lost confidence in this government.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, from reading the exchange of correspondence between the dominion government and the various provincial governments, it appears that the amendment to the British North America Act which is under consideration this afternoon would read as follows-I hope the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) will correct me if I do not have the right wording; I am reading from page 2736 of Hansard for May 4. This amendment is to section 92 of the British North

America Act, and would constitute a new subsection 2a, reading as follows:
2a. The raising of revenue for provincial purposes by indirect taxation within the province in respect of the sale of goods (except goods sold for shipment outside the province) to a buyer for purposes of consumption or use and not for resale, at a rate not exceeding three per centum of the sale price, but not so as to discriminate between sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured within the provinces and sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured outside the province and not so as to discriminate between sellers or classes of sellers of the same class of goods.
That, I take it, is the proposed amendment. Section 92 being the one which sets out the powers of the provinces', this would be an additional power granted to the provincial governments. It would seem to be accurately summed up in the resolution which was passed by the British Columbia legislature a few weeks ago in the following words:
-granting of power to the provinces to impose an indirect sales tax up to but not exceeding three per cent In such a manner as not to encroach or interfere with interprovincial trade;
I understand, further, that all the provinces have expressed approval of this proposed amendment with the exception of the province of Quebec, or if they have not expressed such approval only the province of Quebec has definitely opposed the amendment. If I am incorrect in that, I would ask the Minister of Justice to correct me.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is as much in possession of the facts as I am. In the correspondence the province of Quebec has indicated that it opposes or at least that it does not approve of this amendment. The province of Ontario has expressed no opinion at all in the correspondence, but I believe the premier of that province has since publicly expressed the view that it would not likely be proceeded with.


Howard Charles Green: And the other eight provinces have approved of that amendment, is that correct?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The correspondence indicates that.


Howard Charles Green: So today we come to consider the merits of this proposed amendment. I was somewhat surprised and disappointed at the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). He took a very detached view of this proposal, declaring that he was not going to discuss the merits of the amendment. He said he would be sorry if all of the provinces did agree to such an amendment, but that should they do so then he would recommend to the house that the amendment be accepted. I believe that was the definite statement he made at one stage of his remarks.
Turnover Tax


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: To my colleagues, I meant, and then to the government, because if I made a recommendation to the house it would involve the responsibility of the whole government. I would have, first of all, to recommend to my colleagues and the government before I could make a recommendation to the house.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. Well, the point I am
trying to make is that if all the provinces agreed to this amendment, then the Prime Minister would recommend to the members of his government that the change should be made. In due course, such a recommendation would be brought to the house. Of course, the offer is still open. It is still possible for all the provincial premiers to approve of this amendment. If they do so, then the Prime Minister, following out his statement of this afternoon, would automatically recommend that amendment to the government and to the house. No doubt in due course the change would be made.
My criticism of his attitude is that he must accept some responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada. On questions of this kind involving taxation from coast to coast and involving a very drastic change in the taxation set-up of Canada, the Prime Minister and the government have a direct responsibility to the Canadian people. He cannot evade that responsibility by saying that if all the provinces ask for this change, then they are going to get it. I repeat that is nothing more or less than an evasion of responsibility.
What is the attitude of the provincial governments? They are offered an opportunity to get the right to levy an indirect sales tax. Naturally, that is a great temptation to them. For example, take the province of British Columbia. In that province a direct sales tax of three per cent is now being levied. Every time any person in that province goes into a store to buy certain goods he has to pay a few coppers, perhaps five or ten cents or perhaps a few dollars if he is buying articles such as furniture. That money has to be paid by him and it is annoying. Every time that tax is paid the buyer is reminded of it, and naturally the provincial government would be very glad to have an opportunity to cover up that tax. I believe any one of us would be severely tempted, if given an opportunity to change over from direct to indirect taxation.
Furthermore, the direct tax is not imposed on foodstuffs. If this indirect tax right were given, I believe you would very soon find that foodstuffs would be taxed because there would be no way for the buyer to trace that tax. There would probably be a wider coverage of goods taxed than there is now under direct taxation.

Turnover Tax
Some of the provincial governments have said that if they got this power they would not use it. I believe that attitude has been taken because they know that the proposal is unpopular; and in order to mollify the people of their own provinces, the promise is made: "Oh well, let us get this tax, but do not worry; we are not going to levy it." But hon. members can judge for themselves how long that attitude would last if a provincial government should And itself in need of further money.
On one thing they are all agreed, namely that they do not require this additional tax in order to pay their share of the new old age pension which, as we know, is 50 per cent of the pension for people of the ages 65 to 69 inclusive. I believe that the province of British Columbia will have to pay, under the new plan, only a few thousand dollars more than it is paying at the present time. The correspondence from our attorney general shows clearly that British Columbia at least does not need this additional tax in order to be able to implement the new old age pension plan.
This same attorney general, Hon. Gordon Wismer, has shown clearly what he thinks about the proposed tax. He sat here during the conferences. He is a prominent Liberal and a public man of long experience. Just a few weeks ago he made a statement in which he frankly expressed his views of the tax. I have here a clipping from the Vancouver Province dated May 3 containing the heading "Wismer Lashes Tax Proposal as 'Unfair'; Condemns Plan His Own Government Backed." This was after the provincial legislature had passed the resolution to which I referred a few moments ago. Now we have Mr. Wismer telling what he really thinks about it. The clipping reads as follows:
Attorney General Wismer complimented retail merchants Wednesday on their fight to block indirect sales tax powers being given the provincial government.
I am sure the Minister of Justice must feel that is a case of the dog biting the hand that fed it.
"Such a tax would be unfair to public and retailer alike," he said.
Mr. Wismer was addressing the conference which elected W. C. Mainwaring president of the B.C. board Retail Merchants' Association.
Recalling a resolution passed in Victoria endorsing an amendment to the British North America Act, which would have given B.C. the power to apply "hidden taxes"-those included in sales prices- Mr. Wismer said:
And this is a quotation from Mr. Wismer's speech:	.
"B.C. tentatively agreed in Ottawa to support the amendment although, personally, I knew it was not proper or fair."


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member
knows that the treasurer of the province has already said that they would support this amendment.


Howard Charles Green: Who?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Anscomb, the
treasurer of the province.


Howard Charles Green: I am not speaking for Mr. Anscomb. He will have to speak for himself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is your leader.


Howard Charles Green: The quotation continues:
"Quebec has not agreed to it, so it will not go through.
"We did not ask for the amendment and it does not hurt my feelings.
"If we did have such a tax, the retailer would bear the brunt of it."
Surely there could be no more sweeping condemnation of this taxation proposal than the statement made by Mr. Wismer. Yet we have our Prime Minister saying that the offer is still open and that if these provinces agree to take the power, they are going to get it.
Finally, there is the attitude of the people across the country to be considered. I have had representations from many women's groups in Vancouver. They of course are primarily concerned because they believe that this tax would bring about a further increase in the cost of living. I have had these representations from church women's groups and all sorts of associations. I have no doubt that other members of the bouse, of all parties, have had the same representations. If this tax were to be levied it would bring about further inflation and would add to the cost of living. These people who are objecting to it are not political in any way. I believe they are accurately reflecting the views of the men and women out in the constituencies.
There have also been representations from the retail merchants who are concerned because the merchant is going to have all the problems of collecting this tax. In some cases it would be impossible for him to pass it on to the buyer. There can. be no doubt that taxation of this kind would be particularly unfair to the small retailer.
I do not believe that there have been in recent years many proposals about which there has been such a unanimous expression of disapproval. The members of the government must know of the editorials which have appeared in papers in all parts of the country.
I believe that this proposed tax is thoroughly unpopular, and for a good reason, namely that it is a thoroughly bad tax, if I may again use those words which seemed to rile the Prime Minister so much a few minutes ago. I

suggest to him and to the other members of the government that now is the time to put a stop to his foolish proposal and to decide that there will be no such amendment to the British North America Act.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to discuss the merits or demerits of the proposed tax; I rise at this time because I think that the people of Canada must be badly confused about this question of old age pensions. For the last couple of years particularly most of the members of this house have been discussing the possibility of relieving the aged people of this country, and the government brought forward a program. That program was to abolish the means test at age 70 and to reduce the age limit to 65. That program has been pounded fairly thoroughly into the minds of the Canadian people.
Most of those who are affected think, as they have thought for some months, that at last the members of the House of Commons have got down to business and have worked out a formula whereby their problem is going to be taken care of. They are badly mixed up on that particular angle.
The second thing that they are badly mixed up on is this. We in this house discussed at great length the possibility of Canada's amending her own constitution. A great many nice speeches were made. We were told that Canada at last has grown up, that we go it alone, that from now on we decide our own destiny. Everybody assumed that we had that right, and that matters that were federal in scope could be decided in the House of Commons. But when we get the first test, what happens? The people outside write to members and say that the matter of old age pensions is a federal one. It is a matter dealt with by a federal act that was passed in the first place over the opposition of most of the provinces. After this country has grown up and we have taken the right to amend our own constitution, in order to abolish the means test with regard to old age pensions, we have to apply to the British parliament. The average person is asking himself:	In what respect has Canada taken
the right to decide her own destiny? Dominion-provincial conferences are called, and the premiers are brought in to decide what is to be done about these two important questions. In my opinion the decision was arrived at in 1945, and the program then brought in by the federal government is the program that we should be discussing in this house at this time. Instead of that we have the minutes of the last conference, and agreement was arrived at so far as the elimination of the means test is concerned. But the
Turnover Tax
other matter is just as important as the first one-the matter of lowering the age limit in the group 65 to 69. The real suffering in this country is in that age group. What is the solution? The solution was offered by the provinces. They said:	It is going to
cost us considerably more money to accept the lowered age limit. It is going to mean a lot more people on pension in the provinces, and we are going to pay 50 per cent of it.
The premier of Saskatchewan said that it would cost his province at least fourteen per cent more. That money has to be raised. The premier of Nova Scotia apparently considered the imposition of this sales tax very necessary, because in his last budget he budgeted for approximately $1 million which would be raised through this tax, and I think he was budgeting for a deficit of $2 million or $3 million. I would judge from that action that he considers this tax is necessary if he is to implement the lowering of the age limit.
In presenting his case to the dominion-provincial conference, the premier of Newfoundland stated that out of a population of
350,000	they had at that time about 11,000 on pension. He said that if the age limit were lowered it would mean not 11,000 on pension but 22,000. The number will be doubled, and it is an unbearable load to carry So far as Newfoundland is concerned.
To say that the question now before the house, the abolition of this idea of a hidden tax, has no connection with the second part of the program of old age pensions is not correct, because, in my opinion, they are tied together. Most of the provinces in this country will have to depend on raising new revenue somewhere, and this is the way it was suggested the revenue should be raised. In my opinion, you cannot divorce the two questions. It is definitely tied up with the full implementation of the old age pension program, and we are going to have to make decisions on it. Personally I am opposed to the hidden sales tax. We have been over the years, and I have not changed my opinion on it. But the thing I want to focus attention on is this. Let us not kid ourselves into thinking that, by moving a motion in the house that we are not going to pass the sales tax, we are not injuring the latter part of the program of lowering the age limit.
British Columbia might be able to handle her own problems, and possibly Alberta will. Saskatchewan says that they will have to raise fourteen per cent more money for that purpose. That is a problem. Perhaps Ontario can stand on its own feet, and also Quebec; but very definitely New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are going to have

Turnover Tax
to get a revision in the existing agreements by way of subsidy, or new revenue will have to be found in the province if the sales tax is not to be proceeded with.
The thing I want hon. members to recall is that if we were earnest in advocating the lowering of the age limit, we do not want to brush it off in this house with a motion saying that we are not prepared to pass an amendment in this house to implement the sales tax. I am concerned about Nova Scotia because I know that, unless some new sources of revenue are found, there is not much chance of going through with lowering the age limit to 65. From correspondence I receive and from hundreds of people who visit me when I am back home I know it is in that large group that there is real suffering. Many women who have raised families and have no income are in that large group, and every one of them looks forward to something being done and done quickly. By the look of things now it would appear to me that it might be held off for some considerable time.
I should like to say that in my own province, in lieu of a sales tax, there are things that could be done to raise additional money. For example, there is quite a large gypsum industry in that province. The raw materials are shipped out to the United States. Millions of dollars are lost in the province in the application of royalties. Additional revenue could be raised in that province from that source. The royalty on the sale of coal that was fixed away back many years ago could be stepped up one or two cents and a lot of revenue could be received in that way. I notice that last year the total liquor sales amounted to $21,058,000.52. A five or ten per cent tax on that, or an increase in the price of it, would bring considerable revenue to that province. These methods of raising the additional money to implement the pension at 65 to 69 are things that should be done before we adopt the practice of giving the provinces the right to apply that indirect tax; because as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) pointed out, it is very definitely a change in the whole tax structure.
Anyone who went over some of the Sirois report will agree that that report pretty nearly wrote a new constitution for Canada, and particularly the allocations of the taxation fields suggested in that very comprehensive report. Therefore there are a lot of things that we could do by way of allocating revenue other than changing the constitution to give the provinces the right to apply indirect taxes.
The only reason that I rose was to point this out. Let us not forget for a minute that TVhile some of the provinces may be able to
[Mr. Gillls.)
proceed to implement to the full the old age pension proposals that we have been considering for years, yet there are many of the provinces that cannot implement these proposals without some additional ways and means of raising revenue. The best way may be a revision of the agreements between the dominion and the provinces.
No figures are available as to what it is going to cost each province, except what the premiers of Newfoundland and Saskatchewan have said. Some hon. members to whom I have talked will argue that it is not going to cost the provinces any more when they are not contributing on the original basis of 25 per cent; that that 25 per cent is revenue that they are going to have. That is quite true, but at the same time the picture is not going to be the same in every province. It certainly is not going to be the same in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, because in that age group 65 to 69 I am safe in saying you will almost double the number of people on pension. It is much easier to find, say in Newfoundland, 25 per cent of $40 for 11,000 people than it is to find 50 per cent of $40 for 22,000 people, and the picture will change from province to province. I believe it is well for the House of Commons to make up its mind that, so far as we are concerned, the right to change the British North America Act is the prerogative of the House of Commons. We have that say, in the final analysis, regardless of what the provinces may think. And it is right for us to make that known, because there is a dominion-provincial conference coming up in a day or so. This matter is going to be gone into again; and if the premiers are depending upon implementing old age pensions by that method of taxation, then it is just as well for them to know that, so far as we are concerned, we are not prepared to go along with them. We say other means must be devised to raise the additional revenue necessary to bring about full implementation of the old age pension program.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, there is one point in this connection which I think would stand some stressing, a point which has not been greatly stressed, or at least not so much as some others have.
It will be within the memory of 'hon. members that this question was debated some fifteen years ago-the very same point we have before us now. At that time they backed away from it and the great point made then, which as I understand was given, effect to at that time, is that it was really' creating a situation where it would be possible to have tariffs between provinces. I say at once to

the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that the form of the proposed resolution, at this time attempts to remove that difficulty-but I shall have a word to say about that later.
Let me read from a speech made on May 19, 1936, by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who was then leader of the opposition in the Senate. He says this-something with which I am sure we would all agree-
But hon. members undoubtedly realize that there never could have been a dominion of Canada unless the power to tax by customs and excise was taken from the provinces and reposed in the dominion.
Under questioning at that time as to what the possibilities of such discrimination were the speaker, Mr. Meighen, gave an illustration from New Brunswick where, actually, an attempt had been made to give effect to that kind of discriminatory legislation. I am not sure that it ever was given effect to, but it was on the statute books. It may be that it never got past the stage of validity tests. Undoubtedly, however, it was a clear attempt to impose certain restricted taxes on certain companies. As Mr. Meighen saidi-
If goods are manufactured within the province the tax does not apply; if they are manufactured outside the province the tax does apply.
I need not labour that point further, because I am sure if members felt there was a substantial danger of that happening, there would be no disposition whatever to support a resolution of this kind. Therefore I continue for the moment to refer to that particular aspect of the matter.
In this connection I would read from a staff article appearing in the Financial Post of January 27. It raises the question and, while it does not pretend to lay down any dogmatic conclusions, it raises certain questions which were in my own mind. Because one knows that the world is full of ingenious lawyers, when I read the wording of the proposed amendment the question in my mind was: With all the facilities and with all the intricacies of company structure and company relationships, I would think that there would be some people ingenious enough, if not entirely to evade the aim of the resolution, at any rate to create such legal and other difficulties that the world would be filled with cases trying to interpret the section.
I turn now to this article in the Financial Post, because it puts very plainly the point I wish to bring before the house and which it seems to me, even if there is any substantial danger of its happening, should be sufficient to deter us from having any truck or trade with this plan. This staff article, speaking of the proposal, says:
It is also said to be open to wide possibilities of discrimination as between firms with head office in or outside the province.
Turnover Tax
On this latter criticism of "discrimination," it is claimed here that something can and will be done to prevent abuse if and when it arises, but that this matter has not been broached now because Ottawa would not wish to imply that any province would be likely to be guilty of applying the proposed amendment in discriminating fashion.
It is delightful to read of the charitable and magnanimous nature of Ottawa. But we have already got considerable evidence that it is not a matter of theory, but rather a matter of tactics. The provinces would be very glad to avail themselves of the right to discriminate, if the way was open for them to do so. I continue to read:
In the draft legislation forwarded to the provinces, there is a safeguard against any tax which would hinder interprovincial trade, but none specifically aimed at the more subtle discrimination that might arise if the provincial authority were to pass regulations to favour firms with head office within its own boundaries.
That of course was done in the case of the New Brunswick statute to which I referred a short time ago. And, without labouring the matter further, I think it would be very unrealistic to dismiss as quite impossible devices of that kind. I do not think we should undertake to sit in judgment on the provinces concerned, either. Once they get this right they will be wanting to use it for the benefit of their own citizens. That is their duty; that is what they are elected for. And if we are to abandon this primary safeguard which the fathers of confederation thought was essential, and which fifteen years ago was thought so essential that legislation, as I understand it, was then abandoned, it seems to me we ought to stop, look and listen.
There is one other point I wish to bring out from this same issue of the Financial Post. This is a very interesting statement made by Mr. J. R. Petrie, director of research of the Canadian Tax Foundation, and a recognized tax expert. I read this brief paragraph from what he says. After making various other comments, he added:
The year 1951 is likely to be a turning point in our peacetime fiscal history. Important policy decisions are in the making. As important as any is the decision on sales tax policy. There is still time to reappraise our over-all requirements and to formulate a policy which will really reach the root of the sales tax problem.
If the current proposals, which are not yet public, simply involve a concession to the provinces to levy indirect sales tax, even though some limitation be placed on me concession, uiey represent a retreat from the problem rather than a solution to it. Constructive policy is needed urgently. Now is the time to produce it.
The only observation I wish to add is that, notwithstanding what the Prime Minister said as to the position of the House of Commons-the house seems like a conduit

Turnover Tax
pipe for forwarding the views of the provinces, though perhaps that is an exaggeration -it does seem to me that if we wait until the provinces, let us say, have agreed to recommend a certain course, then I would have thought it would be extremely difficult for this House of Commons to snub them by saying, "You all wanted it, but now you cannot have it".
I understood the Prime Minister this afternoon to go to the length of saying that if, in fact, the ten provinces came along and asked for it, the matter was pretty well decided, so far as we are concerned. If I understood him correctly he said that if that happened he would then submit the matter to his colleagues and-again, if my recollection is right-the matter would be put before the house. We have had a considerable amount of experience as to what happens when something is put before the house by this government. We do not have to make many guesses as to what happens then. Whatever other qualities our friends of the Liberal party may have, we can certainly accord to them the praise which goes to well disciplined troops.
The Prime Minister seemed to indicate that we were merely going to leave it to the provinces. I felt that he felt that it would be rather improper for us to have views on this, but I suggest that if we do not have views now it may be practically too late for us to have them later on.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) I hope will not be offended if I tell him that I am more interested in what he says than in what was said years ago by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. The hon. gentleman is familiar with the law and he must know that the basis of confederation is the exclusiveness of the respective jurisdictions. Does he consider the constitution to be a strait jacket on Ottawa and the provinces? It was for a time. That is the reason why Ottawa has paid three-quarters of the cost of old age pensions and has left the management to the provinces. This was done supposedly in order to respect the constitution.
What is the purpose of a dominion-provincial conference if it is not to provide an opportunity to representatives of the federal government and the provinces to discuss matters of mutual concern and to reach agreement with respect to modern times? I can tell my hon. friend that very few people are for streamlining the constitution. That is not the point. The point is that we are facing new issues. The hon. member
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1
for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) mentioned the agreements between Ottawa and the provinces in connection with the assumption of responsibility for the payment of pensions to needy persons between the ages of 65 and 69 years.
This is a new proposal. If the provinces have not sufficient revenue to pay the share they have agreed to pay in order to provide pensions for these unfortunate people who are not self-supporting, then the only thing to do is to secure enough money in order to do that. If all the provinces are in unison, if they all agree, what can we do? If that is the general desire of the people, can we place obstacles in their way? Can we tell them that just because it was decided by the fathers of confederation that there was to be no change in the constitution this cannot be done? That was the idea in the back of the heads of the fathers of confederation. The British North America Act was not intended to be changed and that is why we have so much trouble about it.
We live in different times. My hon. friend knows that. The representatives of the provinces from Newfoundland to British Columbia have their own responsibilities. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) referred to his professor of Roman law. He was mine also. He is a man for whom I have great regard, but he was not a success as a politician. He had the responsibility of imposing certain taxes that were unpopular and he suffered defeat. He had to decide what tax should be imposed upon the people of his province.
It is the responsibility of the premiers to discuss matters that come within their jurisdiction.	It is true that Ottawa cannot
interfere with the jurisdiction of the provinces or infringe upon it, but when all the premiers attend a dominion-provincial conference and agree to do a certain thing provided they are given the means to do it, it is a matter for their judgment to decide what taxes shall be imposed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Supposing
all the ten provinces decided that they wanted a certain change made in connection with taxes to which this house manifestly would
object, would we still have to approve it?


Jean-François Pouliot: When there is unanimity
among the provinces it is hard for Ottawa to oppose it. The hon. member knows that. If he were Prime Minister of Canada he would make the same speech as the Prime Minister did, except the reference to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (j^lr. Green). That would have been the only difference.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for private bills:
Mr. J. W. Welbourn (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, if I could have unanimous consent I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore):
That Bill No. 269, an act to incorporate Independent Pipe Line Company (letter D-8 of the Senate), be dealt with as the first order of business at this time.
My reasons for desiring to make this motion are the same as those outlined last Friday evening.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman
unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the hon. member has
not unanimous consent I cannot put the motion.



IDA WEINSTEIN YAPHE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 124 for the relief of Ida Weinstein Yaphe-Mr. Weir

Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Hansell:: I should like to ask one or
two questions on this bill. I notice in this evidence, as in a good deal of the evidence submitted in these cases, that questions as to connivance and collusion were asked. One can get a fair idea of whether or not a witness understands what he or she is going through and is being questioned about by reading the evidence. Sometimes witnesses do not appear to have a very clear understanding of some of the questions asked, but when they are asked whether there has been any connivance the answer is given immediately, no; or if there has been any collusion, the answer is immediately given, no. This causes one to wonder whether or not the person giving evidence knows the exact meaning of those terms. Those questions were asked and answered in this case, and that gives rise to some suspicion. That is not so in some cases; it is so here. I notice that in this case the deputy chairman did not ask the person giving evidence whether .she understood these terms. Evidentally he took it for granted that the witness did understand them.


The Deputy Chairman:: May I ask the hon. member when he refers to the chairman of the Senate committee on divorce to so state in order to avoid confusion.
Private Bills


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I made that mistake a week ago and I shall try not to repeat it. When the answers were given to the questions as to connivance and collusion, the deputy chairman of the divorce committee did not ask the witness whether or not she knew what the terms really meant. I can quite understand that lawyers may brief their witnesses to make certain they understand these questions, and I suppose to some extent that is permissible; but even at that I am not fully satisfied that it is the proper way to approach these cases. Might I ask the sponsor of this bill whether or not he is certain the witness ini this case knew the meaning of those two terms.


Mr. Weir:: I think that is very obvious from the positive answers she gave to the questions she was asked.


Ernest George Hansell: That is rather an abrupt answer. I fancy the sponsor of the bill was waiting for that question, but he really has not answered it. He says that is obvious. I am asking a question which can be answered.


William Gilbert Weir: This witness was sworn, and she must have given the evidence as it is set out in the printed report from which my hon. friend is reading. Nothing further I could add would place any greater emphasis on the evidence she gave.


Ernest George Hansell: I agree that perhaps there is nothing further the sponsor of the bill can add, but there is still the question whether or not the witness understood. I fancy the sponsor of the bill does not know; and as a matter of fact I am wondering whether he understands the difference between the two terms.


Some hon. Members:: Do you?


Ernest George Hansell: If hon. members will look at Hansard for last Friday night they will find that I put on record the difference between the two words as explained by the chairman of the divorce committee in the other place.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 125, for the relief of Shirley Titleman Rodin-Mr. Winkler

Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 126, lor the relief of Yvette Ernestine Gagnon Lyons-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section h-Marriage dissolved.
Ernest George Hansell: You were going a little too fast for me, Mr. Chairman. Are we on Bill No. 126?


Louis-René Beaudoin: We are now on Bill No. 126, section 1.


Ernest George Hansell: I should like to say something about this case, because it is very interesting to follow the methods of some of these investigators. I do not call them investigators; I choose to call them something else.


William Gilbert Weir: What else do you call them?


Ernest George Hansell: Well, I think I would call them keyhole peekers, or snoopers. I doubt very much whether they would get very far in life. This is one job where a little muscle might be of some use. I notice that most of them put their foot in the door and push their way in, then begin to toss things around a little bit.
This investigator answers a question. The question is, "Anybody else?" The answer is:
and then I asked the house detective, Mr. Desjardins, to come up to meet me, because he had a master key.
Now, there was a hotel detective in this case, and the investigator asked this hotel detective to come up with him so he could unlock the door. He said:
I did not want to take no chance.
That is a double negative there, but I guess we will not have to spend too much time criticizing this snooper's grammar. Will the sponsor of this bill say, since there was a house detective there who went in and discovered the situation, whether that house detective took any steps to have this man arrested for his misdemeanours?
Before the sponsor of this bill answers that question, might I point out something that I think is more or less commendable in this case. This witness is giving evidence and the attorney, in questioning the witness says:
It was pointed out to me yesterday, and I will try to follow the terms-I hope the witness understands them. Have you in any way connived at this adultery? Do you know what that means?
A. I am not too sure.
Well, that shows that this witness is honest, and is giving an honest answer to the question. Then, the Hon. Mr. Howden says:
Have you had anything to do with bringing your husband and this woman together?
A. Oh, gracious me! No.
nvTr. Hansell.]


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the evidence in these divorce cases should not be repeated in committee. This evidence was given in camera, and is regarded as privileged. I do not believe it is proper, therefore, to have it regaled here and sent out in the public press and over the radio. I can refer you, Mr. Chairman, to Beauchesne with respect to statements which are offensive to members of the house. I shall not go any further than that. I say that this is very offensive to a good many members of the house, and therefore out of order.
It is quite proper to say that we have received from another house the report of a committee dealing with a certain divorce. The facts are there and the committee recommends a certain procedure. Very well, we shall accept their recommendations. But I say that we may not go into the sordid details of the events which led up to the application for divorce. We could amend the Criminal Code, but we may not use offensive language with respect to the facts which are brought out here. I could give you the reference, and later I will gladly give you chapter and verse which prohibits any pornographic or lewd material being placed before the House of Commons.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member has raised a question of privilege, and has referred the chairman to Beauchesne, third edition, particularly the citation referring to offensive language. I should like to ask him to what particular citation he desires to refer.


George Matheson Murray: If the chairman would postpone the decision on the matter and let it stand until the next meeting of the committee, I would be glad to give him chapter and verse.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I am afraid I cannot do that. Since it is a question of privilege, it must be taken up immediately. Does the hon. member for Simcoe North wish to speak on the point of privilege?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Yes. May I point out to the hon. member that we are elected by the people to do our duty, and one duty happens to be acting as a court in the passing of these divorce bills. It may be unfortunate from various angles, but it is part of our duty. Surely, we cannot pass all these bills blindfolded. If any member desires to bring out all the harrowing details in order to get. a clear picture of what we are passing, then he is free to do so. If it is offensive to any member of the committee, he has the privilege of all other members, and that is to retire and not pass acts he knows nothing about.

Private Bills-Divorce


Louis-René Beaudoin: I am afraid it may not be useful to have too lengthy a discussion on this question. It is true that the reports of the evidence in these divorce cases are the results of the taking of evidence in camera. The public is not invited to the sittings of the divorce committee, nor is the press able to attend. When the evidence comes here and is discussed in the house by hon. members, I quite understand the feelings of the hon. member for Cariboo.
'Hon. members will recall that he raised a point of order last week along the same lines as his question of privilege this evening. I would say to him that should it be considered by hon. members of this committee that the reading of the evidence is of such a nature that the people in the gallery, for instance, should not hear that evidence, the only move for him to make would be to ask that the galleries be cleared. Because of the seriousness of the matter, I would report to Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker would put the motion as to whether or not strangers should be ordered to withdraw from the galleries.
The hon. member referred to citations in Beauchesne, third edition, but if he does not mind I shall use the second edition because I have it here. This is the section in which offensive language as used by members is discussed. I do not believe it is offensive for any hon. member of this house to use documentary evidence with which one can study the clauses of a bill. I refer the hon. member to citation 294 of Beauchesne, second edition, which reads as follows:
If a member should say nothing disrespectful to the house or the chair, or personally opprobrious to other members, or in violation of other rules of the house he may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may he to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals; and he is protected by his privilege from any action for libel, as well as from any other question or molestation.
The hon. member for Macleod has said nothing which I believe to be offensive to hon. members. He referred to the investigators as snoopers, and in other qualified terms. He does that on his own responsibility. The only persons to whom he could not refer in this house in derisive or offensive manner are the presiding officers of courts, judges, high officials. I have not before me the citation in Beauchesne, third edition, but I am sure that it is there. I will therefore say that the hon. member for Macleod is in order to carry on in the way he is doing.


George Matheson Murray: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one remark. I bow to your ruling, of course; but if the evidence with respect to these divorce cases is to be discussed in the house, I do not think
that hon. members should quote one paragraph, one page or one section of that evidence only; I think that the evidence should be quoted in full so that the house would have before it the full information with regard to the matter.


Mr. Knowles:: The hon. member is being ridiculous.


George Matheson Murray: It is a serious
matter. My colleague has been a judge of the juvenile court; and other hon. gentlemen have acted as magistrates; and at times, when certain cases have come up, the court has been cleared, the press has been excluded and every effort was made to see that justice should prevail. In this great court, the House of Commons, are we to set aside all those rulings and allow this place to become a common sewer for the offal of the city of Montreal and other cities?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think that the matter has been discussed fully. As I told the hon. member for Cariboo, since he raised the point of order the other evening, I have thought about the seriousness of the problem that might be involved. Hon. members, by citing parts of the evidence, go into details which, of course, it may not be proper to disclose before the house with strangers in the gallery and also members of the press. I inquired as to how this evidence was taken before the Senate committee on divorce, and I came to the conclusion either that I myself should decide to report to Mr. Speaker that the gallery be cleared, or that a member move that I do so. To me, that is the only solution.


Gordon Graydon: May I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman? Is not the argument that has arisen over this point a further indication of the necessity for this parliament not dealing with things of this kind at all?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. That is not a question of privilege. The hon. member for Macleod has the floor.


Ernest George Hansell: I will not prolong the discussion of the hon, member's point of privilege. Nothing would be gained by that. I do not think it is necessary to clear any galleries. We have not read anything that might be offensive. In fact, some of us have skirted all round the matter in order to 'avoid being offensive, and have put a great deal of this evidence in our own language. The hon. member for Lethbridge says that I am not saying anything that I would not say in the pulpit on Sunday. Sometimes that may be offensive; I do not know. However, the logic of the hon. member for Cariboo

Private Bills-Divorce
was so profound that it left me petrified, and I have almost forgotten the question I was going to ask.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I have given a ruling on that point. Clause 1.


Ernest George Hansell: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. Might I ask the hon. member who sponsors this bill whether or not the house detective in this case who found this man guilty of a misdemeanour took any steps to have him arrested?


Mr. Winkler:: Does the hon. member refer to the investigator or to the house detective?


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps the hon. member who sponsors this bill has not read the evidence. In order to get into this room the investigator got "pally" with the hotel detective because he had a key to the room. Surely, if there is a hotel detective, he must be there for some purpose; and I fancy that purpose is to keep law and order.


Gordon Graydon: It is a matter of property and civil rights.


Ernest George Hansell: That might be so. But if he is there to do his duty, I am wondering if he did it and had this man arrested. I am wondering if my hon. friend has any information on that point.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member is going to go into the details of this evidence-


An hon. Member:: We cannot hear a word of what he says, Mr. Chairman.


George Matheson Murray: -I would move that you do report to Mr. Speaker in order that he may take the sense of the house as to whether or not the galleries should be cleared.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Cariboo has moved that I do report to the Speaker in order that he may take the sense of the house as to whether or not the galleries should be cleared. If anyone wishes to speak to the motion-


William Gilbert Weir: Is the motion in writing?


Mr. Casselman:: It should be in writing.


Ernest George Hansell: Is the point debatable, Mr. Chairman?


Louis-René Beaudoin: No; it is not a
debatable motion. But the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas indicates that the motion should be in writing.


Arza Clair Casselman: That is right.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It is not necessary in this case.


Arza Clair Casselman: It always is.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It is an old formula. The hon. member could have said: I spy strangers. This formula has been used before in this house. As I say, if an hon. member makes that motion, I must accept it. My duty now, as I see it, is to report to Mr. Speaker so that he can take the sense of the house on the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, will you accept a point of order?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I see nothing in standing order 13 that makes it necessary to call in Mr. Speaker.
And Mr. Speaker having resumed the chair:


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Mr. Beaudoin of the committee of the whole has reported that the hon. member for. Cariboo (Mr. Murray) has requested that the sense of the house should be taken in order that the galleries should be cleared. Standing order 13 reads:
If any member takes notice that strangers are present, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman (as the case may be), shall forthwith put the question, that strangers be ordered to withdraw, without permitting any debate or amendment.
Is it the wish of the house that strangers be ordered to withdraw?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I take it that the motion does not carry?


Some hon. Members:: Correct.


Major James William Coldwell: Call the yeas and nays.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
And the house having resumed in committee:


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 1 of Bill No. 126 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

Private Bills-Divorce

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 127, for the relief of Rose Pakidailo Greenberg-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 128, for the relief of Marie Jeanne Dragon Bigaouette -Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the sponsor of this bill whether he was able to get the information I asked for the other night, namely, as to what the practice of the Senate committee is in the matter of reducing fees? To how low a figure do they go?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: Mr. Chairman, the Clerk of the Senate sent me the following memorandum. Since it is very brief I will read it:
The parliamentary fees payable on divorce petitions under Rule 140 amount to $210. In cases where it is shown to the satisfaction of the committee on divorce that the applicant is unable to bear this expense the fees are usually reduced to $125, and in a few special cases to as low as $75.
For the present session, of 280 petitions heard to date, the fees were reduced as follows:
In 17 cases fees reduced to $125.
In 8 cases fees reduced to $100.
In 4 cases fees reduced to $75.
The reason that the fees are usually reduced to the sum of $125 is that the cost of printing the evidence, bill, et cetera, is approximately that amount.
L. C. Moyer,
Clerk of the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One of the reasons why I asked the question on this bill, Mr. Chairman, is that I was surprised there was no reduction of the fees in this case because it is the wife who is seeking the divorce and she seems to be having a difficult time. She has to work for her own support. She has two children whom she is helping to support. In using the word "helping" I have in mind the fact that she and her two children live with her father and mother. It appears from the evidence that there was no assistance from the husband. I had thought that this might have been a case where a reduction in the fees would have been in order.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 129, for the relief of Olive Marguerite Cann Nichol- Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this is a case where the fees were reduced, in spite of the fact that there do not happen to be any children.
I should like to ask one other question with regard to the fees. When fees are reduced in the Senate do I understand that in such cases, where the poverty of the client is pleaded and the fees are reduced, the lawyer in the case is required to submit a statement as to the amount that he is charging his client?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I have been told that in
cases such as that outlined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the Senate tells the lawyer what he is to get.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
. ABRAHAM TARONTCHICK
The house in committee on Bill No. 132, for the relief of Abraham Tarontchick-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 133, for the relief of Mabel Caroline Lay Redburn McCormick-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in
the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am sorry that two or three of these bills have been passed without what I consider any examination, or any thorough examination, which would justify us in breaking up a home on these terms, without knowing anything about the conditions.
I notice that this bill is sponsored by a private member, the hon. member for Lisgar. I was going to suggest that a great number of these bills are sponsored by the same

Private Bills-Divorce
private member. May I suggest that since there are some other private members' bills on the order paper, they may want to get them before the house. If there is any way consistent with a thorough examination of these divorce bills, I wish that they might be allowed to stand so that the private members who have bills on the order paper might get a chance at them. As I say, these bills are all sponsored by the same private member, except one sponsored by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa, and with all respect to the hon. gentleman, for whom we all have the highest respect, I think he is getting too much of his share. Of the private members' bills on the order paper of the House of Commons of today's date, May 22, we find that on page 19 there are three private bills, one sponsored by the hon. member for Sirncoe East, one sponsored by the hon. member for Skeena and one by the hon. member for Hamilton East. I think that these gentlemen should have a chance to get their bills before the house. I wish they could get them before this house, but only with some method which is consistent with a thorough examination of these divorce bills. Apparently what we have to do is to give these things a thorough examination, and I think we shall have to do just that. Personally, I should be very glad if it could be arranged that these other private bills-


Mr. Cameron:: Will the hon. gentleman
permit a question?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon.
member must speak to the bill and not discuss procedure generally. Therefore I would ask him to speak to the bill.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The hon. member has asked me whether I would permit a question. Certainly I shall do that, but I will not say I shall be able to answer it.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Does the hon. member not
think that the proceedings which took place before the committee of the other house, dealing with these matters, and the consideration and care which are given to these matters when they come before the committee on miscellaneous private bills, do not indicate that they have been carefully gone into?


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member is now asking a question of a general nature relating to divorce procedure in the other place. It is not in order to do so on section 1 of the bill.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: I was following the argument of the hon. member, and answering him.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member
for Saskatoon may continue.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I would be delighted to answer the question but-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order, I could
not allow the hon. member to answer the question. Only this bill is before the committee.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, I was just
proceeding to say that I would make no attempt to answer the hon. member's question, although I would be delighted to do so if the rules permitted.
We are now discussing Bill No. 133. The lady in this instance is suing her husband for a divorce. I am interested in this case, as I have been in others, because there is the question of the custody of a thirteen-year-old child. It is one of those unfortunate cases in which the children suffer for the sins of their fathers, or in some cases their mothers-or, I am afraid, in many cases, both of them.
At any rate there is the question of this thirteen-year-old child. The court in the other place makes no provision for the care of the children. It simply says that the marriage is dissolved. Then these people have to come to as friendly an arrangement as possible, or have to go through further court proceedings, with further expense, to decide upon who shall have the custody of the child. In some instances the custody has remained with the guilty person. Surely that must be unfortunate from the point of view of the moralist. In some eases the child has lived with its grandmother, and in other -cases with anyone who would keep it. In other words, the -child is out on the street.
I suppose there is no use asking the sponsor of the bill if he knows anything about the custody of the child in this case-or does he know?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: The custody of children, I
take it, is -not within the jurisdiction of this committee, or of any committee of this house.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Before resuming my seat I
should like to say another -word about the case. There has been some criticism of the type of investigator employed in these particular cases, and also the type of witnesses-
I was going to call them exhibits-used. Perhaps the proper term is co-respondents.
I would- point out that in this case, as in many others to which we have referred, the name of the co-respondent was not discovered during the investigation carried- out by the Senate committee. The name was not a-sked for. Sometimes the name is asked for, and the lawyer on the other side of the case will say that that has no bearing. Here is a

woman who was seen-and that is enough. It is strange that while the investigators were astute enough to find out everything else that happened, they could not find the name of the co-respondent.
I am firmly of the belief that today there are people who are professionally working at this game of giving professional evidence in these divorce cases, and that without shadow of a doubt they are faked cases.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Speaking to this bill, let me say that this is a great exhibition that is taking place in the Dominion of Canada. One must realize that it costs about $2,000 for every forty minutes the house is in session.


An hon. Member:: More than that.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is the minimum. Here is a group of men in the House of Commons, men without any experience in these cases, with very few exceptions-and those exceptions would be the members connected with the legal fraternity. We are making a farce of divorce; and in this particular case-


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member is discussing divorce generally.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No, I am discussing this particular bill.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Oh, no; when the hon. member says that the House of Commons is making a farce of divorce cases, he is not referring to this particular bill, section 1. I must ask him to confine his remarks to the section before the committee.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I have Bill No. 133 in my hand. Here is the evidence-truthful and untruthful. In most instances in Canada we attempt to follow precedents, and that is a good practice. In the past, experience has been a great teacher. Surely in this year of 1951, trying this particular case, the particular government in office, with more power than any previous government, could put this law on a basis where members of the House of Commons would not be asked to pass upon this particular bill, and to act in the disgraceful, illegal and unethical manner in which we have to act when passing these bills.
It is time members of the House of Commons put their foot down and demanded that, so long as we are going to be asked to pass on this particular bill, the laws of the Dominion of Canada should be amended so that there would be a proper court set up to pass upon this bill, from now on.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Private Bills-Divorce

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 134, for the relief of Jack Harold Frederick Grater-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Sections 1 aind 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 135, for the relief of Kathleen Merle McCullough McCallum-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, in looking over the evidence in this case I find it is almost identical with that of Bill No. 123, which I discussed on Tuesday evening. The same investigators were used and the same story told to the committee:
By the Clerk of the Committee:
Q. Tell me your full name?
A. Harry Maxham.
Q. And your age?

Q. Where do you live?
A. Montreal.
Q. What Is your occupation?
A. Private investigator.
Then the private investigator proceeded to give evidence and said that he saw the man, and followed him on several occasions. He saw him with a woman, and followed them to an hotel. He said that he saw them register, that he then proceeded to room No. 3.


An hon. Member:: The same room?


Major James William Coldwell: He says he knocked at the door, and that the door was unlatched, and "I entered the room by using force against the unlocked door." Looking at the evidence of this same man in the other case, Bill 123, which was before us last Tuesday evening, I find that he said, "We forced our way into the room"-in similar circumstances and described almost in the same language.
I want to say it is about time these bills were removed from the House of Commons and placed in the courts.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: An awful waste of the
public's money.


Major James William Coldwell: There may be reasons why this bill should be passed; but it seems to me we are getting too many bills with evidence of the type I have just referred to, and with the same investigators appearing time after time and giving the same sort of evidence. I object to being made a party to the passage of bills of this description in the House of Commons. We are going to see to it, as the days go by, either that something different is done or these bills be not passed at all.

Private Bills-Divorce


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall I report the bill?


Alphonse Fournier: On division.
Bill reported, on division.



MARY MARGARET URQUHART CUTHBERT GILMAN

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 136, for the relief of Mary Margaret Urquhart Cuthbert Gilman-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Ernest George Hansell: I understood the sponsor of the bill to say that the Senate committee decided on the fee the attorneys were to get. If that is correct, would he tell us what fees the attorneys got in this particular case?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I have no further information than is contained in the printed evidence, and it does not appear here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe that that applies only when the fees of the Senate are reduced or remitted. If the petitioner pays the full fee to the Senate the lawyer does not have to say what he is charging his client for his work on the case.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Margaret Isabel Ward Green

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Frederick jTohn Pratt-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Arthur Frederick Albin Turner-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Maria Silvaggio Mazzalongo-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 138, for the relief of Rejeanne Laliberte Tinker- Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the remark that was made on an earlier bill there is a question I should like to ask with respect to this one. The remark I refer to was to the effect that these bills received careful consideration in the House of Commons committee on miscellaneous private bills. Can the hon. member for Lisgar tell me the length of time that was given by that committee to the consideration of Bill No. 138?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is that question pertinent to the principle of this clause which
[Mr. Coldwell.)
concerns the dissolution of the marriage of these two people? I do not think that that question is in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we are asked to accept the report of a committee of this house that this marriage should be dissolved we have the right to ask the chairman of that committee what consideration was given by the committee to the bill before it recommended its passing.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I was asked that question before and the answer given was that the bills were all considered in bulk. That is the answer that applies.


Major James William Coldwell: How long did the meeting last in which these bills were considered in bulk?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I did not time it.


Major James William Coldwell: How long would you guess?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Probably only five minutes.


An hon. Member:: Sufficient time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 142, for the relief of Jacqueline Yvonne Suzanne Stucker Grant-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1

Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Are any children involved in this case?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I have not got up to that evidence yet and I do not know whether there are or not. I suggest that the hon. member read that himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is the point. We have put through several divorce bills in a couple of minutes-


Mr. Robinson:: On a point of order: on several occasions on clause 1 of these bills questions have been asked with regard to the children. I do not think that such questions are relevant under section 1, which provides merely for the dissolution of the marriage, and I would ask for your ruling on that point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When this House of Commons is asked to dissolve the marriage of a husband and wife-many hon. members say it should not take place at all-we have the right to ask whether there were any children of the marriage. That question is frequently asked by the Senate committee and I think we have

the right to have that information before we are called upon to pass on the dissolution of the marriage.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If questions pertaining to the children have not been asked in the Senate committee on divorce no one here can answer them because the witnesses did not appear before the committee on private bills. If the information does not appear in the printed evidence, no one here can give it. As to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Simcoe East, I would think there is something in his point. I doubt whether it is in order to ask questions about the children and what treatment they are going to receive. It is not within our jurisdiction to deal with children. The only reason I thought that perhaps questions with regard to the children might be allowed was that it is a well known fact that in doubtful cases the decision of the Senate committee on divorce might be affected one way or another when there are children. But we have no jurisdiction as far as children are concerned and I would ask hon. members to consider that fact in future discussions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I make just one comment on that point of order. We know that we have no jurisdiction over children, but we do have power to pass or turn down a bill. Our decision to pass or turn down a bill may depend upon what is going to happen to the children. That is why we are anxious to know about the children.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: There are no children
involved in this case.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: the third readings of Bills Nos. 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 and 141.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion.


An hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bills read the third time and passed on division.
Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock the
house will revert to the business under consideration at six o'clock.



PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BRITISH NORTH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) that the house go into committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Fulton.
Turnover Tax
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the
question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the question is put I think I should ask the opinion of members of the house as to whether or not the amendment is in order. I have not been able to find a similar amendment. The motion before the house is that I leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply. The amendment is:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that further consideration should not be given to the proposal to authorize by amendment to the British North America Act an indirect provincial sales tax of three per cent.
Upon reading the speech from the throne I find it contains a reference to legislation to amend the constitution, and I am sure that reference is to the legislation referred to in the amendment now before the house. It occurs to me that the house has come to the decision that it will consider an amendment of the constitution if and when presented. Another difficulty I find is that this amendment appears to anticipate by a negative motion certain legislation foreshadowed in the speech from the throne, which may or [DOT]may not come before the house.
I am very doubtful whether the amendment is in order. I have given it very careful consideration for the reason, as I have said already, that it appears to be without precedent. If any hon. member cares to make any observations I shall be very glad to hear them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It occurs to me, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the first thing one should consider in: this connection is the citations in Beauchesne which refer to the moving of amendments to the motion that Your Honour leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply. The first is citation 345 at page 137 of the third edition, and it reads in part as follows:
The ancient doctrine that the redress of grievances should be considered before the grant of supplies is maintained in the House of Commons of Canada by the provision of standing order 49 that the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair can be amended; and the amendments need not be relevant but may relate to every question connected with public administration.
The other citation is No. 467, at page 174 of the same volume:
Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means, the motion "that the Speaker do now leave the chair" must be proposed, except on Thursday and Friday as provided by standing order 28. When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss

Turnover Tax
any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance . . .
It seems to me the wording of those two citations, particularly citation 345, which says it is competent to a member to move an amendment which need not be relevant but may refer to any question connected with public administration, indicates that the subject matter of this amendment, which is the amendment of the constitution and the imposition of a three per cent sales tax, a subject which is before a dominion-provincial conference, certainly is a matter affecting public administration which if decided in the conference would require an address of this house before such an amendment of the constitution could be made. So it seems to me the matter of the amendment is quite within the scope of the two citations referred to.
Then to deal with the point made by Your Honour that there was reference to constitutional amendments in the speech from the throne, and the speech from the throne having been voted already that might preclude further consideration of this question through a substantive motion at this time, it seems to me, though I have not the citations before me at the moment, the relevant rule there is that a matter on which a decision has once been reached cannot subsequently be raised at another stage in the session. But does it not seem to Your Honour, as it does to me, that this rule refers to questions which themselves have been the subject of motions, amendments or subamendments and have been decided by a vote? I doubt very much whether it would be feasible to extend the rule to apply to the whole subject matter of the speech from the throne. If one particular phase of the speech from the throne is made the subject of a specific motion or amendment, I suggest that it is not proper to extend the rule to apply to the whole speech, but that only the one part which has been made the subject of a motion may not be raised again. If you were to say that once the speech from the throne has been adopted no motion referring to any of the subject matters of the speech from the throne could be made, debate in the house would be almost pointless, and the field within which one could bring up a subject would be so restricted as to almost eliminate debate during the session. Indeed it would be almost impossible to move an amendment to a budget motion, because some matter on which it was desired to move an amendment there might have been referred to in the speech from the throne. Supposing the speech from the throne said, "It is anticipated that it will [Mr. Fulton.1
be necessary to lay before you proposals for higher taxation to meet defence costs." To extend the rule in the way it seems to me Your Honour has indicated would mean we could not move an amendment on the budget because, the speech from the throne having been adopted, Your Honour would say that had been decided already.
So it seems to me that unless a particular part of the speech from the throne has been made the subject of an amendment or a motion, the rule to which Your Honour has referred does not preclude it from being made the subject of an amendment or a motion at a later stage in the session. This particular question of constitutional amendments was not the subject of any prior motion or amendment this session, and I submit therefore it is open to a member at this stage to move a substantive resolution or amendment dealing with tha-t subject.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to take part in this debate on the regularity of this amendment. When studying the case yesterday and today I thought the test might be that if a member were entitled to move a private resolution such as we have on the order paper at the beginning of the session, in about the same terms as this amendment, then the amendment could not be declared out of order. On the other hand when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) spoke he laid great stress on the speech from the throne, and I think even read the two references to these negotiations with the provinces. Once the speech from the throne is carried I do not think a private member can anticipate any legislation that may be based upon it. The speech from the throne says:
The provincial governments are at present giving consideration to these proposals and to proposals tor constitutional amendments which may require to be submitted to you before the close of the present session.
Now, this was debated in the house and decided in the affirmative. When a member can stand up and tell the government, "Well, you cannot bring in legislation to amend the constitution after having had an affirmative vote on the speech from the throne", that would, in my mind, be the strongest point to support the opinion that the, amendment is out of order.
There is only one earlier case to which I shall refer. It is not similar to this one, but it is a decision of Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Mr. Glen. It is found at page 631 of Beau-chesne, third edition, and concerns a subamendment to the amendment moved by the opposition. It was ruled out of order. The subamendment was moved by the hon. member

for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). The headnote on that decision reads:
On the motion for the address in reply to the speech from the throne, a subamendment expressing regrets that His Excellency's advisers are contemplating a reversal of policy cannot be entertained because it deals with future action, is based on an unapproved assumption and seems to be holding the government responsible for something it has not yet done.
That is the only decision I could find which has some similarity to the present amendment. I believe, as has always been the case in the past, your decision will satisfy everyone.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would, hope that you would give your earnest consideration to this before reaching such a decision as you have indicated is a possibility, because I would suggest, with deference, that a decision that this motion is not in order, for the reasons suggested, would constitute a most dangerous precedent. After all, the book to which we refer so frequently for guidance in reaching decisions on matters of this kind constitutes very largely the record of precedents established in the very manner in which we are now dealing with the subject under consideration. The suggestion has been made that this motion is not in order because of a reference to the subject matter of this motion in the speech from the throne. May I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the appropriate paragraph in Beauchesne, third edition, page 174, the paragraph numbered 467. That paragraph makes it clear that it is the established practice, and that it is appropriate, to raise by way of such a motion as this any subject that it is competent for this house to deal with, save the exceptions which have in themselves been established by the precedents which have accumulated over the years in this house through decisions such as that which might be made at this time.
Now, the only exception to the right to bring before the house a subject that it is appropriate for this house to discuss at any time is, of course, that it shall not relate to some motion already on the order paper. I shall quote Beauchesne, third edition, at page 174:
. . . shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
Now, working back, it is quite obvious there is no notice on the order paper that precludes consideration of a motion of this nature. Second, there is nothing in any motion proposing that something go to the committee of ways and means that precludes consideration of this amendment. This does 80709-210
Turnover Tax
not deal with any item of estimates which we shall be called upon to consider. Therefore, the only exception which could possibly be raised against the consideration of this motion is that there has been a decision of this house during the current session in regard to the subject matter of the motion.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) said that I had laid great stress on the speech from the throne. I laid great stress on the speech from the throne only to the extent that it was in the speech from the throne itself that the word "proposal" was used to describe the amendment to the British North America Act which is under consideration. But let us see whether there has been placed before the house in the speech from the throne anything which calls for a decision. This, Mr. Speaker, I submit is the key to whether or not the exception would relate to a decision by the house.
What was said in the speech from the throne was simply this, as it appears at page 2 of Hansard for January 30:
The provincial governments are at present giving consideration to these proposals and to proposals for constitutional amendments which may require to be submitted to you before the close of the present session.
That, Mr. Speaker, is simply information communicated to the house. My reference to this was not because any decision had been reached on that but because it was in that very paragraph that one of these amendments, which is of course the amendment under consideration, was described as a proposal along with the other amendments. No decision has been reached by the house in regard to a statement prepared by the government and placed in spoken form by His Majesty's representatives. AH that this says is that the provincial governments are at present giving consideration to these proposals. Mr. Speaker, it did not require any decision of this house to determine whether or not that was so. The fact that the house has not tried to declare that they were not being considered by the provincial governments neither strengthens nor does it weaken the argument in favour of permitting an amendment of this kind.
It is only by carrying a precedent of this kind to the point of absurdity that one can see just where a decision of this nature would leadi. Let me refer to another statement of a similar nature in the speech from the throne.
The Supreme Commander, General Eisenhower, has recently visited Canada to consult with the government and the chiefs of staff.
Is that a decision which would prevent anyone here from introducing a proper

Turnover Tax
resolution at some stage that we would welcome a visit by General Eisenhower to this country, or that we approve of the decisions which have been made by General Eisenhower? Certainly, if this constitutes a decision which precludes discussion of a subject mentioned in an informative statement of that kind, it would be equally true that the fact the house has passed the speech from the throne which informs us of the very welcome fact that General Eisenhower was here would prevent us from discussing anything connected with a statement which might be made by General Eisenhower, or any views we might like to express in regard to views he may place before us.
Then, let us look at another subject in regard to which information was given to this house in the speech from the throne. Again I quote from the speech from the throne:
The urgent need of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project In relation to the security of this continent is becoming increasingly apparent.
If the mention by the dominion government of this proposal to place before Westminster, should the provinces approve, the request for an amendment to the British North America Act is to be regarded as something in respect of which a decision has been made, to such an extent that it would preclude discussion here, then I would say that obviously it would be equally true that we must decide that the decision has been reached with regard to the St. Lawrence seaway which would preclude the possibility of a resolution being introduced in this house which would call for an expression of opinion by the hon. members of this house to the effect that the government of Canada should proceed with the construction of the power development on the St. Lawrence if co-operation with the United States does not in some way become a reality. One could go through statement after statement in the speech from the throne which was merely indicated as a statement which would give information to the house. If those are to be regarded as decisions which preclude the introduction of either a substantive motion by way of the ordinary notice or a motion by way of an amendment introduced in this manner, then all that would be necessary to prevent the effective introduction of motions of any kind during the session would be to make brief references to enough subjects in the speech from the throne; then effective debate in this parliament would be completely stultified simply by the fact that the speech from the throne had been passed. I submit, Mr. Speaker, in all earnestness that the result of such a decision would create an established decision on record-which future interpreters of the rules of this house

would be called upon to recognize-which would invite an absolute barrier being placed upon debate simply by the device of including in the speech from the throne every subject which might conceivably come up during the session and which the government did not itself intend to introduce by way of legislation or by some motion. One hesitates to use such a term, Mr. Speaker, but a decision of this kind could establish within the framework of a democracy the effective practices of dictatorship.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to recognize how far a decision of this kind could go in precluding all discussion except that which is formally introduced by the government itself.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, may I say that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has established a point upon which perhaps most of us can agree. But there is another point upon which we would find great difficulty in agreeing with him. When a clause such as that which he has just read to the house is included in the speech from the throne, it indicates the cogent possibility of legislation at some time later on in the session. It would seem that, once such a clause has been so included, quite apart from any effect that may have resulted from the passage by the house of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, it is improper to introduce any amendment or other motion which anticipates such government legislation.
For example, let us suppose that in this particular case the provinces, instead of reaching a disagreement with regard to the desirability of this sales tax amendment, had, we will say, less than a week ago advised the federal government that they were in agreement as to the necessity for this amendment; then suppose that we for any one or more of a number of reasons did not find it convenient to introduce, until a week or ten days hence, the joint address which was required to secure the passage of such an amendment. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it would not then be open to any member of the opposition, by a motion such as that moved by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), to force the government, in advance of the time that it might wish to introduce the joint address, to bring it into the house and have it debated; because I think it is a generally accepted principle that as to when those measures of government policy which are indicated in the speech from the throne are brought in, the government has the privilege of bringing them in, at any time that fits in with the public business which is in charge of the government.


Mr. Mclvor:: I should just like to state
how the matter appears to me, Mr. Speaker. Not being a lawyer, this looks to me like a matter of legal technicalities, not clear to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) or to the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton); otherwise they could explain it in far shorter time than they have taken.


George Alexander Drew: To refer to what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has said, there is of course a decisive difference between those measures which the government announces that it is going to introduce and subjects which are only referred to by way of general reference. It should be pointed out that in the speech from the throne there is no statement that the government is going to introduce something or in what form it will be introduced. The nearest that it comes to an indication that anything might be brought before the house is to be found in these words:
. . . amendments which may require to be submitted to you before the close of the present session.
That, Mr. Speaker, is just simply a general statement with regard to the possibility of something which may or may not be introduced. I can only repeat that, if a decision of this kind were reached, it would only be necessary for the government to set down a list of things which it did not think it was going to introduce and say "we may introduce them"; then when the speech from the throne was finished, all discussion of them by way of resolution or amendment to a motion of this nature would be precluded, and the ordinary rights of the opposition to introduce subjects for discussion in this way would be terminated by a decision of this kind.


Major James William Coldwell: May I just say one word,
Mr. Speaker. I have listened to the discussion and it seems to me that this matter can be decided by thinking of an ordinary procedure at a public meeting. I do not think the chairman of a public meeting would take a motion that something cannot be introduced or considered. I think the chairman would say that when this is introduced for consideration, at that time you have the privilege of voting it down. Taking it from that point of view, it seems to me that this motion is analogous to the situation arising if somebody at a public meeting rose and said that something shall not be considered. Consequently, apart altogether from the long discussion of the rules and all the rest of it, in my opinion this amendment is not in order. That would be my view.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I may just reply to the
point made by the hon. member for Rose-
80709- 2104
Turnover Tax
town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), it seems to me there is a fundamental confusion between the two things that he has referred to. This resolution which I moved this afternoon does not say that the house must not consider something. I have not the text of it before me at the moment, but what it says is that the proposal submitted by the government to the provinces should not be proceeded with. It does not say that the house must not consider something which is not before it at all. It refers to things which the government is doing, admittedly in another place, and which it is doing now. It is not hypothetical. The question of this amendment has been considered at sessions of the conferences, has been discussed in correspondence and is to come up again. It is a matter which is under active consideration. This resolution merely asks the house to express an opinion on something which is now under consideration by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say first of all that I raise this question of order because I realize, along with the leader of the opposition, that it is a very important matter. The leader of the opposition says that it would be a dangerous precedent not to allow it. I was concerned with whether or not it would be a dangerous precedent to allow it. I do not know to what length members might go in introducing motions of a negative character.
For instance, if this motion is allowed to stand I suppose I could not object to a motion, if an hon. member decided to make it, to the effect that further consideration should not be given by this government to bringing in legislation in connection with old age pensions, or a means test between 65 and 70. If I allowed this amendment I am afraid I would have to allow a similar amendment.
I realize the importance of this decision, and for that reason I have allowed full discussion of the point of order. I wanted to be very sure that I was right, and that I was doing an injustice to no one, and I was not establishing a, precedent that would not be a sound one.
I made some notes of what has been said. I will not refer to all the remarks that have been made; but if this amendment is allowed, would it not have been in order for an hon. member to have moved an amendment similar to the one before the house to the effect that at this session further consideration should not be given to a complete revision of the Indian Act? If this amendment is in order then I think an amendment to that

Turnover Tax
extent would have been in order on a motion to go into supply because all that is said in the speech from the throne regarding the Indian Act is:
You will also be asked to consider a complete revision of the Indian Act.
By adopting the speech from the throne I take it that the house agreed to consider an amendment to the constitution along the lines referred to in the amendment, should such an amendment be submitted to the house. Might I say also that the question in connection with an amendment of the constitution is not to the effect that the house would amend the constitution; it was not to the effect that the house would amend the Indian Act and the other statutes. The effect of the speech from the throne was that the house would give consideration to an amendment of the Indian Act and the constitution, and other matters which are referred to in the speech from the throne.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would Your Honour allow me to point out the difference in wording of the two? In the one case it says:
You will be asked to consider a complete revision of the Indian Act.
In the other case it says:
The provincial governments are at present giving consideration to these proposals and to proposals for constitutional amendments which may require to be submitted to you before the close of this present session.
I submit there is a great difference there.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the point raised by the hon. member for Greenwood, but when the speech from the throne was prepared it was not known whether it would be necessary to present to the house amendments to the constitution. But by adopting the speech from the throne I take it that the house agreed to, consider amendments to the Indian Act, and also agreed to consider amendments to the constitution, should they be presented to the house.
As I say, I realize this is an important decision. I have listened carefully to all the representations that have been made. I came into the house with an open mind, and after giving careful consideration to what has been said on the point of order, I am now prepared to make my ruling.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said that this is a negative motion, and he doubts whether it would be allowed at a public meeting. The amendment anticipates by a negative motion something which may be presented to the house at a later date. In

my opinion, by the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the house indicated its willingness to consider the measures set forth in that speech, particularly:
The provincial governments are at present giving consideration to these proposals and to proposals for constitutional amendments which may require to be submitted to you before the close of the present session.
As I have said, these constitutional amendments are referred to in the speech from the throne, and I understand that the proposals for the amendments in the speech from the throne were then a matter of public record and related to the proposals in relation to an indirect provincial sales tax.
The present amendment before the house, which would prevent further consideration being given to the sales tax proposal, is, in my opinion, not reconcilable with the earlier decision where, by a vote of this house, the house indicated its willingness to consider such a proposal if and when introduced by the government. I therefore rule that the amendment is out of order because it anticipates by a negative motion something which may be presented to the house at a later date, and as being in conflict with a previous decision of this house.


George Alexander Drew: I appeal the ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And some members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
To the motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply, Mr. Fulton moved, seconded by Mr. Drew:
"That all the words after 'that' to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that further consideration should not be given to the proposal to authorize by amendment to the British North America Act an indirect provincial sales tax of three per cent."
I ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it anticipated by a negative motion a measure which the government had indicated it might present to the house at this session, and also on the ground that it was not reconcilable with the previous decision of the house in adopting the
MAY 22, 19b 1
address in reply to the speech from the throne to give consideration to such a measure, if and when presented.
From this ruling Mr. Drew and others appealed.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was paired with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.



COST OF PRODUCTION

Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I have a grievance which I wish to raise at this time and which affects hundreds of thousands of wheat producers in western Canada. I refer to the fact that during the present crop year the wheat producers have produced wheat now selling at a price which does not adequately compensate them for their increasing costs of production.
We in this group have always held that the wheat producers and other farm producers of Canada, and the industrial workers for that matter, should have a parity income, should receive for their services a price comparable to the cost of producing those services. There is no method at this time by which the wheat producers of Canada can protect themselves against the ever-increasing costs of production. In order to indicate how these costs have risen I might say that in 1945 the eleven factor cost of production index for farmers stood at 152*1, whereas on January of this year that index had risen to 216*9, an increase of 64*8 points or 42*6 per cent. I want to point out that when the 1950 crop is finally disposed of there will be little or no chance of the western wheat producers receiving any more for it than they received for the 1945 crop, even though since that date the cost of production has gone up by more than 40 per cent.

Wheat
As I have said, we in this group have always believed in parity prices. We believe there should be some fair relationship between the farmer's cost of production and, in this instance, the price of wheat. I remember that during a debate in 1946 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made the statement that a parity price for wheat at that time would be $1.41 or $1.42 a bushel. He went on to explain- that this was the parity price previous to increases which had occurred in implement prices and farm labour costs. If one looks at the eleven factor index at that time, that is, January of 1946, one finds that it stood at 149-7. In April of 1950, when farmers were undertaking expenditures for the production of the 1950 crop, that index stood at 209-7. In August, 1950, when the farmers were harvesting the 1950 crop, that index was 218-7. On that basis the 1950 average for the eleven factor index was 214-2. This means that on the basis of the parity price given by the Minister of Agriculture in 1946 and the change in the cost of production since that time as given- by the bureau of statistics, parity price for the 1950 crop would be $2.02 a bushel. One might figure parity prices on a different basis. If one makes the assumption that the price for wheat during the five year pool period bore a fair relationship to the cost of production, taking the average of the eleven factor index for that period as 175-6 and considering the average for 1950 as 214-2, then parity price for the 1950 wheat crop would be $2.24 a bushel.
I have heard it said altogether too frequently in this house that the farmers in Canada are making more money today than ever before and that the wheat producers of western Canada, being the elite among farmers, so it is said, are making even more than the average of all farmers in Canada. I have before me a report of the bureau of statistics showing the net income of farmers in the prairie provinces in 1949 and 1950. The income of farmers in the three prairie provinces in 1949 was $803-5 million. In 1950 the income of those farmers dropped to about $644 million, or a loss in that one year period of $159-5 million or more. I realize that certain adjustments will be made which will change that picture to some extent; but considering the cost of production in 1949 as compared to the cost of production in 1950, and the very large drop in income indicated by the bureau of statistics, I submit that the position of the farmers in 1950 even including any subsequent payment on the 1950 crop will be considerably worse than the position of the farmers in 1949.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is already $200 million.
-'Mr. Argue.]


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, but $200 million does not buy nearly as much today as it bought in 1949. The minister could not have -been listening to what I said. I pointed out that the effective buying power of the farmers' income for 1950 will not be as great as it was in 1949. I have here a publication of the Department of Agriculture, the Economic Annalist. It contains a table showing the value of production in constant dollars per farm worker, starting back in 1901, omitting some years and going up to 1949. In looking over these figures I was amazed to find that the farmer's production, in other words his income, has gone down from a peak of $2,211.60 in constant dollars in 1942 to $1,857.10 in 1949.


Mr. Blue:: If I may ask the hon. member
a question, is he speaking from -books or from experience?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am speaking from both, and
I doubt if the hon. member who asked that question speaks from either. As I said, the statistics I have been quoting are from an official publication put out by the Department of Agriculture, and for my part I would not question their accuracy. While there are certain variations up and down from 1942 to 1949, these figures certainly prove that the farm net income in constant dollars has been going down. On Wednesday, May 16, I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) this question:
In view of rising costs of production and an increasing world price level, has the government made any attempt to have reviewed the present ceiling price under the international wheat agreement?
The Minister of Trade and Commerce replied:
The international wheat agreement is an agreement among some forty governments. It is now in its second year of operation, and the only action Canada could take to vary its terms would be to denounce it. Canada has no intention of denouncing it, nor has it any desire to do so.
That was not an answer at all to the question I posed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I did not suggest in that question, I do not suggest now, and I never will suggest that the Canadian government should in any way denounce the international wheat agreement. All I was asking the government was whether or not they had considered the suggestion made in the presentation to the cabinet by the farmers union of Alberta, the British Columbia bloc, the Saskatchewan farmers union and the Manitoba farmers union that the government do what it could to have the international wheat agreemen* reviewed in order that the farmers might be given some compensation because of the rapidly increasing cost of production since that agreement was signed. This idea did not

originate with me. I do not know whether it originated with the farmers unions; but I do know that Mr. Danielson-


Mr. Cote (Malapedia-Maiane):: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Surely.


Alcide Côté: The hon. member says it does not originate with himself; I should like to know from what source it comes.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sorry I did not hear the
hon. member.


Alcide Côté: You said it
does not originate with yourself, and I should like to know from where it comes.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the hon. member for
Matapedia-Matane would contain himself, I was just about to say where that suggestion might have originated. It may have originated with Mr. Danielson, a Saskatchewan Liberal member of the legislature. Mr. Danielson's motion presented in the Saskatchewan legislature as shown in Votes and Proceedings for Thursday, April 5, reads as follows:
That this assembly requests the federal government to take action to renegotiate the international wheat agreement, with a view to having an additional term added to the said agreement providing for an annual conference between the parties thereto, such conference to have the power to increase the minimum and maximum price each year, so that such prices may be set at an amount which would give the same purchasing power as the said prices did when the agreement was signed.
I may say that a number of amendments were moved to that motion. If the house desires I can read the motion as amended, but the amended motion in no way changes the intent of the first motion moved by Mr. Danielson. When that motion asking for a revision of the international wheat agreement was put to a vote, I might point out that it received the unanimous support of the members of the Saskatchewan legislature.
I believe that Canada, one of the chief exporting countries under the international wheat agreement, and a country that has over 400 of the some 2,000 votes distributed amongst the countries signing that agreement, might very properly suggest to the other signatories that a conference should be called to discuss this matter. That was all I had suggested, that was all the farmers of the nation have suggested, and that was all Mr. Danielson, the Liberal farm critic of the Saskatchewan legislature, suggested. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) threw up his hands in holy horror, and said that the government were not going to repudiate the international wheat agreement-I thank him for saying that, but I wish he had replied to my suggestion.
Wheat
Almost all the wheat being sold today by the Canadian wheat board is being sold on the basis of $1.89 or $1.90 or $1.91, right in that neighbourhood, for No. 1 northern, basis Port Arthur-Fort William or Vancouver. The wheat outside of the international wheat agreement sold on Saturday last for $2.29J per bushel, which was 38 cents a bushel higher than the wheat being sold on that date under the international wheat agreement. This means that on that basis the wheat producers of Canada are subsidizing the Canadian consumer today to the extent of 38 cents a bushel. I am against a government policy that forces the wheat producers to subsidize the Canadian consumer. I do not want to see bread prices rise, but if bread should be subsidized then I believe the country as a whole should pay that subsidy, not the wheat farmers alone.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, there should be a final settlement in view of the increasing cost of production, and in view of the fact that the western farmer is still being forced to subsidize the Canadian consumer, for the 1950-51 wheat crop of not less than $2 per bushel. I suggest that is a very moderate request. It is a request for the dominion to guarantee a payment of only some 8J cents more than the price at which No. 1 wheat was being soldi by the wheat board to international wheat agreement countries and to Canadian millers on Saturday last. In my opinion it would amount to no more than the farmers of Canada are doing during the same year by way of subsidizing the Canadian consumer. All I am asking in this suggestion is that the farmers of western Canada be allowed to recover from all the Canadian people, through the federal treasury, an amount approximately equivalent to the subsidy that the western wheat farmers are now providing for the Canadian people.


Mr. Cote (Matapedia-Matane):: May I ask
the hon. gentleman a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: No; I do not think I will permit the hon. member the opportunity of asking me a question now.


Donald Buchanan Blue: You could not answer it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will answer any questions at the end of my speech. I am not afraid of the question, but I should like to conclude my remarks. Considering what I have said, Mr. Speaker, my request for the $2 a bushel is fair and reasonable. It will not in any way totally compensate the farmers for the terrific increase in farm costs brought about by the fact that this government would not take adequate measures to hold down the farmer's cost of production. The farmer is

Wheat
the only person in Canada today who has to sell his commodities at a frozen price when his costs of production are rising by leaps and bounds.
When most issues are being discussed in this house I usually hear one of the cabinet ministers refer to what is being done in the United States as an argument for Canada doing something similar. I want to tell the house what the United States government is doing for the United States farmers. The United States wheat producers are selling a larger quantity of wheat under the international wheat agreement than is the Canadian wheat producer. On the Chicago market at the present time wheat is approximately $2.35 a bushel. The United States government does not say to the wheat producer, "All you can possibly get for your wheat is the price under the international wheat agreement." Instead of that the government guarantees the farmers a certain percentage of parity. For -the 1950 crop the United States government guaranteed the farmers 90 per cent of parity, a guaranteed price of $1.99 per bushel. Then the United States government said to the wheat producer, "For every bushel of wheat you produce you can receive the highest possible price." So, while wheat has been selling for $2.35 per bushel on the Chicago market, the United States farmer is receiving the full benefit of that price. I want to read a comment in this regard taken from the Country Guide of May, 1951. It is a monthly commentary, furnished by the United Grain Growers Limited. It reads as follows:
The United States has now completed sale of its full agreement quota, and Australia's sales are practically completed. Consequently it is to Canada that buying countries now look for remaining quotas under the agreement. This country has still to sell about 35 Million bushels before completing its commitments. The United States is refusing to enlarge its quota, and any wheat bought in that country for export is at the prevailing market price, 60 cents per bushel or more above the maximum price stipulated in the agreement. The United States government has subsidized all sales this year under the agreement at a total cost which cannot be very much less than 100 million dollars. Farmers in the United States have received the full market price for their wheat, and the government there has absorbed the full burden of the agreement. The government of Canada has undertaken no such expenses, and to whatever extent the maximum price under the agreement represents a burden, that has fallen upon the Canadian wheat producer.
That is the situation in the United States.
I do not ask the government to do for the Canadian wheat farmers everything that the United States government is willing to do for their wheat producers. But I ask the government to do something for the Canadian wheat producers and that something is to guarantee them a final payment for their 1950 crop of at least $2 a bushel. The United
fMr. Argue.]
States guarantee their farmers 90 per cent of parity plus anything they can get above that. We are asking that our government take into consideration the terrific increase in the farmer's cost of production, also the fact that the farmer will get but little more for the 1950 crop than he received for each crop from 1945 to 1949, even though those crops were produced at considerably less cost. We further ask that this measure be undertaken so that the farmers of western Canada may be compensated for the subsidy which today amounts to 38 cents on every bushel of wheat consumed in Canada. Because we think that should be done, and that it is a moderate suggestion, I wish to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright):
That all the words after the word- "that" to the end of the question be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house, in view of drastic increases in the cost of production, the government should give consideration to the advisability of making the final payment on the 1950-51 wheat crop an amount that will bring the total payment for the said crop to not less than $2 per bushel for No. 1 Northern, basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver."


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Shall the amendment carry?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not at all.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Those in favour of the amendment will please say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Those opposed will
please say "nay".


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: In my opinion the "nays" have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Some hon. Members:: Carried. Mr. Blackmore:	Mr. Speaker-
Government Financial Policy


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lionel Chevrier: Too late.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Speaker, you did not make clear what question you were calling.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, he did.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is only one question
before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: There was only one question before the house. 1 do not wish to be unfair to the hon. member, but I thought I had waited a sufficient length of time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly you did.


Lionel Chevrier: Too late.



GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL POLICY


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I desire first of all to associate myself with the expressions of the hon. member from Saskatchewan who spoke recently on the wheat question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: I rise to voice a grievance against the practice of the government of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Why?


John Horne Blackmore: My grievance is that His Majesty's present government in Canada has mismanaged the financial affairs of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Horne Blackmore: *-and that as a result there is obvious danger to the people I represent in this house. Specifically, Canada's Department of Finance is failing to keep enough money circulating in the hands of the appropriate people to ensure the health of the body economic of Canada.
Money has been fittingly characterized as the bloodstream of any community's economy. It is essential therefore for the economic health of Canada that money should visit regularly in adequate quantities every unit of the Canadian community.
In this age of abundance in which we live, abundance resulting from the employment of machines, solar energy and technological skills, it is no longer possible for any government to maintain adequate working circulation of money in the state with only debt-money at its disposal.
To help focus attention upon the thesis I desire to dwell upon, may I place before the house two monetary pronouncements of compelling significance for these times we live
3304


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if we look at pages 2198 and 2199 of Hansard of this year we find almost an exact repetition of the speech the hon. member is making. He is repeating the same speech for the fourth time. At that time he indicated that there were three main reasons for inflation, and then he went on to describe what he referred to as debt-free money and how happy we would be if we adopted his system. There is a rule that a member cannot repeat the same speech four or five times during the same session. I do not know if my point of order is well taken but I protest against having the people's money spent in that way, even if it might be debt-free.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, may I just reply to the hon. member. I think that without very much effort I could go back into the pages of Hansard and find hundreds of times where hon. members have risen and stated, "We cannot get money anywhere else except from the people."


Alphonse Fournier: You have told us that for sixteen years.


John Horne Blackmore: If the rule as to repetition is to be applied it will not be very long until we have no speeches in the house at all. I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member might take into consideration the remarks of the minister and consider whether it is appropriate to continue this speech when the motion to go into committee of supply is called again.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will continue or close this debate. Then we will take up Bill No. 198, to amend the Customs Act; then Bill No. 293, respecting units of length and mass; then Bill No. 191, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act; then Bill No. 192, to amend the Petition of Right Act; and finally Bill No. 322, respecting the Canada post office.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
3307
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 23, 1951